Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: hartiberlin on September 27, 2014, 11:54:29 PM

Title: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: hartiberlin on September 27, 2014, 11:54:29 PM
New topic for some members who want to contribute to this topic.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TechStuf on September 28, 2014, 12:20:55 AM
Great topic title. Much more titillating than, say....

 "Come put on a show of personality conflicts, squabbling, bickering, and other reality show style drama to increase site traffic and keep the forum chugging along!"

Where there is conflict, hey, at least there's energy. 


TS
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on September 28, 2014, 06:08:52 PM
I asked Stefan to create this topic because on this forum there is an underlying deficiency in basic knowledge about how magnets and electromagnets work.

Many people here are working with and measuring magnets and electromagnets and are misinterpreting the information they are gathering about them. In order to interpret that data correctly, you first need to have a good understanding of the fundamentals about magnetic fields. The aim of this thread will be to present the fundamentals and have an open forum discussion about them.

A number of myths and misconceptions will also be listed and an attempt made to properly address each as they are presented.

Here are a number of myths and misconceptions to start:

1. Conventional permanent magnets and coils/inductors (cored or not cored) inherently exhibit a Bloch wall as part of their existence, usually as either a dead or transition zone in the middle of the magnet or coil.

2. Permanent magnets exhibit a neutral zone in the middle where there is either a very weak or no field at all.

3.
When I move my Hall probe around my magnet or coil, I see null zones in my readings as they go from +'ve to -'Ve on the scale, therefore this proves that there are Bloch walls and neutral zones in magnets and coils.

4.
The field of a magnet is stronger at its "poles" compared to the field strength at the magnet's center.

5.
The traditional depiction of a magnet with half of it shaded blue (north pole) and the other half shaded red (south pole) is an accurate representation of how a magnet really works and how the field lines run through and around it.

Points 1. - 5. above are all false and incorrect.

The first 4 myths and misconceptions could easily be cleared up if one were to first clear up myth number 5. But let's deal with the "Bloch wall" misunderstanding first.

First and foremost, Bloch walls can only exist inside ferromagnetic material, so that immediately eliminates air and copper.

Bloch walls CAN exist inside ferromagnetic materials such as iron and strontium ferrite (ceramic magnets) for example. They exist when inside the ferromagnetic material, there are adjacent magnetic domains that are oriented in different directions. This happens in an unmagnetized piece of iron for example (the domains are random), or when a contiguous piece of ferromagnetic material has purposely been magnetized in more than one direction in different sections of the material.

Note that Bloch walls typically do not exist inside the ferromagnetic core of a coil. The core is typically situated "inside" the coil winding, so the core's magnetic domains are all polarized in the same direction. See second picture of coil field orientation.

Let's now look at myth number 5.

This simplistic depiction of a magnet leads us to believe that there is no field (or that there is a "Bloch wall") right in the middle where the color changes from red to blue. It also makes us believe that there are two polarities of magnetism. This is simply incorrect. Magnets really should be illustrated with one solid color and a single arrow from one end to the other (See attachments and link to Hyperphysics). Why? Because this is actually how they work.

There is no discontinuity of field in the center of a magnet, or solenoid for that matter. A simple test if you have a Hall probe is to take two cylindrical magnets and stack them together. Insert the Hall probe between the two magnets right in the center and measure the field strength. Is it zero? Is it as strong if not stronger than what you measure at either end of the magnet?

I highly recommend this Hyperphysics page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html) be studied until clearly understood.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TechStuf on September 28, 2014, 10:08:39 PM
You couldn't have started this topic yourself, Poynt99?

Just a head's up...

The archaic field model you have displayed fails even a 5th grade level examination.  One has only to bring two N poles and two S poles into close proximity to dispel the notion of quanta flow in one direction.  We are to believe, with as yet ZERO plausible explanation anywhere to be offered from the "halls of science" that two N poles brought to close proximity would not exhibit greater opposing force than two S poles brought to the same opposing positions?  What with all those "virtual photons" being ejected at relativistic speeds from only one end of a magnet, one should think that some appreciable differences could be observed!

Yet, what do we find upon close examination with simple tests?  Such a curious incongruity should have been properly explained long ago, one would imagine.  Yet, I have seen no published data that sufficiently accounts for such disrepancy. 

Try it yourself, bring two S poles into contact with one another.  Once contact is made and opposition force is retained, the doorway to the old thinking is slammed shut.  How does one compare the data obtained with the results one finds from flipping the magnets and doing the same with the N poles?

Even simply levitating two ring magnets on a pencil N to N and S to S disproves the old field model.

I have done tests on numerous occasions and find the old field model to be incorrect for various reasons.


TS



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on September 28, 2014, 10:31:31 PM
TS:

That's called leading yourself down a garden path.  Your posting is hard to decipher but you seem to be implying that there will be a difference in force between a N-N opposition as compared to a S-S opposition.  That's not true.

Who said anything about "virtual photons being ejected at relativistic speeds?"  Who said anything about a "quanta flow in one direction?"  There is no flow of anything!  It's just more garden-pathing on your part.

You can see how problematic it can be for an experimenter to "half learn" something and then tack on the crazy myths and beliefs that you see on the forums.

You have it set in your mind that "the field model is incorrect."  Then with this belief fixated in your mind, you do some experiments to "confirm" what you want to believe.  Hence the name of this thread, "Magnet Myths and Misconceptions."

Remember, there is no such thing as "North" and "South" so your discussion about differences between the two is moot.  Those are just artificial constructs that we have created to make it easier to talk about magnetic fields in practical applications.

The solution for you is to keep climbing up the learning curve and Poynt is a great communicator and teacher.  To do that effectively you have to get rid of that "garden pathing" crutch that is hampering you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TechStuf on September 28, 2014, 10:45:22 PM
Ah, MH and right on cue.  And as predictably neophytic as ever.


And so it begins....


I'll leave you to it then.


 :D


P.S.  If you guys can muster up even half the excitement as the TA vortex extravaganza, then I and my popcorn supply will hold out nicely.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on September 28, 2014, 10:57:33 PM
Sorry there TS but I am sensing that you are backing out.

Who says mass produced magnets have perfect symmetry in their polarization when they are manufactured?  Does the magnet manufacturer actually go to all of the trouble and expense to do that?  What about all of the experimentation done on the forums with magnets?  For example, one end of a magnet wrapped in a coil that pulses?  Can't external disturbances like that knock some of the magnetic domains in different directions if the disturbances are strong enough?

There is your explanation for your asymmetry when you compare N-N opposition vs. S-S opposition.  Ah, but I am assuming that never occurred to you.  I have never seen that posted anywhere.  Likewise, for all these years you have probably looked at "North" and "South" as separate and distinct entities, when in fact they don't even exist.

Thought experiment:  You walk into a large empty room and there is a single vertical wire in the center of the room going from the floor to the ceiling.  There is one amp of current flowing through the wire.  You have your trusty compass in your hand.  Where is the "North" pole in this setup?  Where is the "South" pole in this setup?

That's an example of you being a neophyte.  So my advice to you is to listen to what Poynt has to say and do some follow-up research on your own.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on September 29, 2014, 12:34:21 AM
You couldn't have started this topic yourself, Poynt99?
I did indeed ask Stefan to create this topic for me, well for everyone actually.  ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 29, 2014, 01:56:18 AM
I did indeed ask Stefan to create this topic for me, well for everyone actually.  ;)

Darren:

Great topic and, I have a question.  About 8 years ago, for reasons unknown to me, I decided to superglue two neo mag disks together with their opposing poles facing each other.  (I can't recall if it was NN or SS, or if I even checked)  These were very strong magnets and resisted my attempts force them to do this.  I finally put the glue on the surfaces and worked them together and placed them into a vice until the glue cured.  The following day, I checked out the "new" magnet I created and was shocked to learn that all I had was a thicker neo with a north and south pole.  Nothing else was different about it at all.  I don't really remember what I was hoping to see but, this was not it.  I was probably trying to make a magnet with 2 poles that were the same. To make matters worse, a few days later I dropped it on the floor and the disks separated.  Each disk had a normal north and south pole.  I just assumed that when glued together over night, somehow the poles realigned or something.  But this did not seem to be the case.

I have always wondered why this was over the years so, I just thought I might ask over here.  If I did not explain what I did clear enough, let me know and I will try again.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on September 29, 2014, 03:15:39 AM
Bill,

My first question would be, when the magnets separated are you quite sure both were at their original orientation of N to S? Or did one flip polarities?

I've glued two of those radio shack flexible magnets (about 1/8" thick) back to back and eventually, one had a magnetic "bubble" (a round zone of opposite polarity to the rest of the magnet) in it when I separated them later.

I have worked with magnetizing guitar pickup magnets (Alnico) and also slightly demagnetizing them by bringing a neodymium close to them. If you are not careful and get too close, the alnico magnet will suddenly flip poles and be fully magnetized in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on September 29, 2014, 04:06:47 AM
What about origin of magnetic field?

An idle electron produces only electric field but when it starts moving it produces magnetic field.  What makes a moving electron to produce magnetic field? Does a moving electron produce both elctric field and magnetic field or only magnetic field?

A permanent magnet creates magnetic field around it for infinite time without losing energy of its electrons. Does it mean that magnetic field is created out of nothing?  Does a moving electron dig out energy from vaccuum (ether) to create magnetic field around it?

Why should a moving electron produce magnetic field?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 29, 2014, 04:34:12 AM
Bill,

My first question would be, when the magnets separated are you quite sure both were at their original orientation of N to S? Or did one flip polarities?

I've glued two of those radio shack flexible magnets (about 1/8" thick) back to back and eventually, one had a magnetic "bubble" (a round zone of opposite polarity to the rest of the magnet) in it when I separated them later.

I have worked with magnetizing guitar pickup magnets (Alnico) and also slightly demagnetizing them by bringing a neodymium close to them. If you are not careful and get too close, the alnico magnet will suddenly flip poles and be fully magnetized in the opposite direction.

Good question.  I have no idea as I never thought to mark them n/s either before, or after my little experiment.  When I said that they had their "normal" N/S poles once they came apart, it is easily possible that one of them switched polarity.  I have tons of neos around here now, I could try it once again and, this time, keep track of the poles.  It would be interesting to see if that is what happened.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on September 29, 2014, 05:07:06 AM
Poynt99, MH.... Bravo!

Let me put in a couple of cents worth here as well.

Magnetic field lines have no real existence. They are like contour lines on a terrain topographical map, or isobars on a weather map. That is, they are mathematical fictions that we use to focus upon details of the underlying phenomenon: elevation in the case of the topo map, pressure and wind with isobars, and the _direction and strength of the field gradient_ for magnetism and electrism. (I just made that word up to denote the electric field phenomenon.)

The concept of the "field line" has a rigorous mathematical description that permits us to talk coherently about features of the underlying phenomenon. Calling that underlying phenomenon a "field" simply describes the fact that there is a region in space where test particles tend to move in certain ways. The magnetic field lines are a map of this tendency of probe particles to move and are a rigorous mathematical statement of how they move, that can be used in calculations. And since we can't explain these motions without the concept of force, we can talk about, define, calculate and use the force that is moving these test particles, using the concept of "lines of force" or "field lines".

You can even use a primitive analog indicator to approximate the results of these calculations: mix some iron filings in glycerine to make a ferrofluid, or sprinkle some on a piece of paper over a magnet. Or use the same system in a solid state: the green magnet-field-viewing film.

Just as there are no isobars, but there is a wind... just as there are no contour lines, but there are mountains... there are no field lines in reality, even though the "field" itself exists.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on September 29, 2014, 05:27:28 AM
TK:

Yes indeed that's a great point about the myth of "field lines."  Many times I have read postings making references to "breaking field lines" where the poster was talking about literal magnetic field lines.  There is even a "paper" that is floating out there that is all written around the concept of breaking literal "field lines."

Another myth that should bite the dust!  <thump> <thump> <thump>

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on September 29, 2014, 02:50:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhiAIsJCS9Y
(watch, read description and comments)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory

http://www.mqitechnology.com/downloads/articles/MagnetizingGuide.pdf


Aaaaand.... discuss.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on September 29, 2014, 10:12:07 PM
It is a particle flow
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on September 29, 2014, 10:19:55 PM



 There's nothing to it,just read Ken's books.
                    John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on September 30, 2014, 12:22:09 AM
Do you have a link John?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MasterPlaster on September 30, 2014, 12:41:32 AM
Here is the  link and the thread:

https://ia902502.us.archive.org/31/items/magnetism1small/magnetism1small.pdf

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17560-uncovering-missing-secrets-magnetism-92-pages-free-new-book.html
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on September 30, 2014, 01:03:35 AM
Of course... nobody has ever been able to design a working device based on these "missing secrets" that isn't fully covered by standard EM theory. Meanwhile, that same standard theory allows us to perform amazing feats of engineering, manipulating entities that the author of the "missing secrets" text claims do not even exist. All the while, typing away on his electronic digital computer that was designed 100 percent using the theory he says is wrong, and works by carefully channeling the behaviour of things he says aren't real.
It's too bad we don't use CRTs any more... the refutation of all his postulates would be staring him in the face whenever he sits down.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on September 30, 2014, 02:26:29 AM
Hey, that RWG  Ed Leedskalnin trick looks just right for a "Trash harvester".


What does Ed Leedskalnin's "Impulse Magnetization Effect" have to do with Tesla's early wireless transmitter pictured below? This transmitter broadcasted a magnet wave thirty miles from downtown New York to West Point. It transmitted power along with information. The top portion of the radio contained a spark gap that created a violent "Field Collapse", similar to the one Russ produces with his one wire coil, from the battery below.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on September 30, 2014, 05:19:47 AM
Here's a schematic of an early spark gap transmitter:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on September 30, 2014, 05:56:07 AM
What would happen if we use two identical clip leads, and form two one loop coils? We loop one lead so the clips are positioned in close adjacency like a spark gap. We run the wire through the hole in the board and assemble the six nuts like Russ did. Now, we take second clip lead across the room to a battery, loop it and spark a field collapse. What are the chances the spark will jump the gap in the second wire and lock the nuts with the same Ed Leedskalnin "Impulse Magnetization Effect" at a distance?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on September 30, 2014, 03:38:21 PM
Quiz time.

If a steel ball is place near a magnet on a flat table,why is it attracted to the magnet?. I mean dosnt the steel ball carry the field of the magnetic pole it's closest to,dose it not become an extension of the magnet/. If so,then why do two like poles attract.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on September 30, 2014, 07:23:26 PM
"In 1888 physicist Heinrich Hertz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz) set out to scientifically verify Maxwell's predictions. Hertz used a tuned spark gap transmitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmitter) and a tuned spark gap detector (consisting of a loop of wire connected to a small spark gap) located a few meters away. In a series of UHF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF) experiments, Hertz verified that electromagnetic waves were being produced by the transmitter. When the transmitter sparked, small sparks also appeared across the receiver's spark gap, which could be seen under a microscope".


What would it take to recreate this spark gap transmitter reciever of Heinrich Hertz, to transmit and receive Leedskalnin strength locking force? A larger battery perhaps?


Look at Hertz's first receiver below. It's just a one wire loop with a spark gap, just like Russ's Impulse Magnetizer coil:


I may be, once again, reinventing the remote car door lock!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on September 30, 2014, 08:42:39 PM
Synchro1, you are polluting what is supposed to be an educational thread with junk fantasy postings.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 01, 2014, 03:48:56 AM

A permanent magnet creates magnetic field around it for infinite time without losing energy of its electrons. Does it mean that magnetic field is created out of nothing?  Does a moving electron dig out energy from vaccuum (ether) to create magnetic field around it?

Why should a moving electron produce magnetic field?

Have a look at this experiment.

http://www.overunity.com/11016/eliminate-lenzs-current/msg290688/#msg290688


When a non-insulated 'spring' carrying current is compressed, number of turns becomes one.  Hence one turn has to produce tremendous
current to conserve the flux.    But a very high current cannot be maintained at low voltage. So, it has to dig energy from vaccuum to conserve the flux!

In the above experiment if flux is conserved then energy is not conserved and if energy is conversed, then flux is not conserved!   Nature
prefers what?  Conservetion of flux or energy?


http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse


In a EMP weapon a current carrying coil is melted by making an explosion which makes number of turns in the coil zero resulting in sudden collapse of magnetic field which in turn creates severe electromagnetic pulses in the atmosphere.

EMP weapon produces EM pulses in an uncontrolled and vigorous manner.   In the above experiment you can produce controlled EM pulses.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on October 01, 2014, 04:31:38 PM
  A magnetic field that is changing will cause charged particles to change their position.  Charged particles that are changing their position will cause a changing magnetic field.  That is why motors that claim to run using permanent magnets are mythical.  Please note the words CHANGE versus PERMANENT.  To create a permanent magnet take a conductor and cool it down until there is no thermal energy left in it.   You have increased the order within the conductor.   As they do when they manufacture a permanent magnet.  Now move your cold wire near a source of heat.  As  the chaos increases in the cold wire the magnetic field changes.  If there is a nearby conductor a current will be induced in the conductor.  It is simply the transfer of order from body to body.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 01, 2014, 08:50:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-M07N4a6-Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-M07N4a6-Y)

(Compare this demonstration to some of the "demonstrations" and "experiments" that have been presented concerning magnetic fields on another thread.)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: fritz on October 01, 2014, 10:52:35 PM
Hi,

what a fruitful discussion.
We all got bluffed at a certain point from these iron filing experimenters kits.....
Another typical myth or misconception - is the idea that an iron core "concentrates" the magnetic field lines(!!) of a coil - and thus intensifies the magnetic flux.
The truth is that the field from the coil stays the same - and the resulting flux is a superposition of the magnetized (by induction)field of the core and the coil.
Even if its often not that transparent - the links to the electric domain persist. The embedded charge of a dielectrica gets its orientation by electric induction and the increased flux  is a superposition of the originating flux and the flux of the induced dielectrica.
Both dielectrica and permeabilita are non-homogenous.... which explains why a cap is never empty..... and a coil needs few current to be neutral....

rgds.



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 02, 2014, 04:12:12 AM

Another typical myth or misconception - is the idea that an iron core "concentrates" the magnetic field lines(!!) of a coil - and thus intensifies the magnetic flux.


Please have a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN6mFr7veF4&feature=youtu.be

If flux is not concentrated in the iron ball, how it will stick to the steel rod?   The concentration of flux or density of flux depends on lot
of factors like size, shape, length, area, type of magnetic material etc.

Why do you use 'air gaps'  in solid cores?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 02, 2014, 05:47:54 AM
Hi,

what a fruitful discussion.
We all got bluffed at a certain point from these iron filing experimenters kits.....
Another typical myth or misconception - is the idea that an iron core "concentrates" the magnetic field lines(!!) of a coil - and thus intensifies the magnetic flux.
The truth is that the field from the coil stays the same - and the resulting flux is a superposition of the magnetized (by induction)field of the core and the coil.
Even if its often not that transparent - the links to the electric domain persist. The embedded charge of a dielectrica gets its orientation by electric induction and the increased flux  is a superposition of the originating flux and the flux of the induced dielectrica.
Both dielectrica and permeabilita are non-homogenous.... which explains why a cap is never empty..... and a coil needs few current to be neutral....

rgds.




The words "concentrate", "intensify" are only more specific of the same conception of the word "superposition". Of course, the field lines are only graphic representation of the field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: fritz on October 02, 2014, 01:07:39 PM
The words "concentrate", "intensify" are only more specific of the same conception of the word "superposition". Of course, the field lines are only graphic representation of the field.
What I wanted to point out is the mix up of cause and effect.
"concentrate" is wrong in my opinion - because it would mean that the already existing field is just modified (which is not the case)
"intensified" would be ok for me - because the presence of such permeability intensifies the resulting field. (as long as the ferromagnetic homogenous core has no magnetic bias)
"superposition" would tell me that the resulting observation is always a combination of more than one effect.
If I use a non-homogenous magnetized core - the interaction of coil and core as well as the resulting field cannot be described with "concentration" nor  is it "intensified" in a linear describeable manner.
This is why I think that superposition is the proper concept to explain that - and the resulting field is composed of(=a superposition) of  coil field and core field(as a response of induction from the coil field).

rgds.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 02, 2014, 09:18:14 PM
What I wanted to point out is the mix up of cause and effect.
"concentrate" is wrong in my opinion - because it would mean that the already existing field is just modified (which is not the case)
"intensified" would be ok for me - because the presence of such permeability intensifies the resulting field. (as long as the ferromagnetic homogenous core has no magnetic bias)
"superposition" would tell me that the resulting observation is always a combination of more than one effect.
If I use a non-homogenous magnetized core - the interaction of coil and core as well as the resulting field cannot be described with "concentration" nor  is it "intensified" in a linear describeable manner.
This is why I think that superposition is the proper concept to explain that - and the resulting field is composed of(=a superposition) of  coil field and core field(as a response of induction from the coil field).

rgds.

This discussion is really about trying to understand magnetic permeability and how it relates to magnets and magnetic fields.  Sometimes it is also called magnetic reluctance.

The complimentary concept for electric fields is permittivity.

Anybody that wants to understand magnets and how they work should research theses two topics and master them.  Again, there are probably thousands and thousands of places online to find more information.  If you are doing experiments with magnets and you don't understand these concepts then you are walking around with your eyes blindfolded bumping into walls.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 02, 2014, 09:26:53 PM
Here is an example of myths and misconceptions on a place where there is no surprise that this is the case, PESN:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:09:25#Magnetic-like-binding_of_nuts_via_Leedskalnin_PMH (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:09:25#Magnetic-like-binding_of_nuts_via_Leedskalnin_PMH)

Quote, "What makes this "trick" possible is our present lack of sufficient understanding of magnetism and equations/laws to describe it."

There is no author cited, but I will assume that it is Sterling Allen, the man that believed the spoof CGI clip was real where a guy was demonstrating a "Back to the Future" anti-gravity levitating skateboard.  This process is understood right down to the atomic level.

Even this concept, "Directory:Leedskalnin "Perpetual Motion Holder" (PMH) Bond Effect (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Leedskalnin_%22Perpetual_Motion_Holder%22_%28PMH%29_Bond_Effect)" is silly.  In real life nobody calls this a "perpetual motion holder" and nobody makes claim to it.  Thee is nothing to make claim to at all.  In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: barbosi on October 02, 2014, 11:21:19 PM
If you go for a search in archive.org for Davi's Manual of Magnetism, you'll get several copies. But if you chose the edition from 1865, at the page 170 of the book (179 of pdf file), at the experiment 272, Figure 109 you'll find Leedskalnin's perpetual motion holder. Now, because is a myths and misconceptions thread, anyone would notice that Leedskalnin did not invented it and in fact, it was someone else long before his time who did it. One conclusion to be drawn, Leedskalnin found it in the books as he admitted he was visiting the library quite regularly.

Even this concept, "Directory:Leedskalnin "Perpetual Motion Holder" (PMH) Bond Effect (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Leedskalnin_%22Perpetual_Motion_Holder%22_%28PMH%29_Bond_Effect)" is silly.  In real life nobody calls this a "perpetual motion holder" and nobody makes claim to it.  Thee is nothing to make claim to at all.  In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this.

Nobody makes claim to "perpetual motion holder" because is so old, the inventor's name is lost, but feel free to call it as you wish as long you could make use of it. Which brings me to "In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this".

Are you kidding, or are just an average ignorant? Watch the following video and re-draw your conclusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpd52QAdVgU

If you cannot do anything with the effect, is your problem. The effect is real, and in my opinion it should not be discarded because an ignorant or shill dismisses it.

Regards.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 03, 2014, 12:02:35 AM
Barbosi:

Nobody "invented" this, it's just a property of magnetic material.  You can put energy into a closed-loop magnetic core and store the energy in the form of a closed loop of magnetic flux.  It's just a property of magnetic materials and there is nothing to invent.  That's what people need to understand.

Nobody says "In the 1950s and 1960s that computer memory was implemented using Ed Leedskalnin perpetual motion holders."  If you said that to a scientist or an engineer in the 1960s they would look at you like you were crazy.

For your point where you quote me, "Which brings me to "In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this,"  I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that English is not your first language.  "Not batting an eyelash" does not mean or imply that there are no practical applications for something.  What it means is that there is nothing noteworthy or remarkable about the topic of discussion and it does not merit any further serious investigation.  So your linking to a clip about magnetic core memory is inappropriate in this case.

"If you cannot do anything with the effect, is your problem. The effect is real, and in my opinion it should not be discarded because an ignorant or shill dismisses it."

So, I can understand that you used the term "ignorant" because I am assuming that English is not your first language.

But "shill" I take offense to.  So you please tell everyone reading this thread about magnet myths and misconceptions why I am a "shill."  Explain your reasons for stating that or retract your comments.  If you don't reply and pretend to ignore my statements concerning your comment that will tell everyone something about you.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 03, 2014, 12:04:06 AM
Here is one of the worst offending clips that promotes ignorance about magnetism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWSAcMoxITw
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: barbosi on October 03, 2014, 01:19:46 AM
Here is one of the worst offending clips that promotes ignorance about magnetism:

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

I'll retract my comments if you properly explain how this promotes ignorance about magnetism. I'm not saying it does not, just prove your point.

You got the stage.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 03, 2014, 02:01:17 AM
In the clip they say, "Nobody knows (what's happening)" and "This is essentially an unknown phenomena in the realm of physics."  He also says, "There is no reason that they should be stuck together."

That's a bozo clip that will make people stupid.

From here:  http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Leedskalnin_%22Perpetual_Motion_Holder%22_%28PMH%29_Bond_Effect

MarkE, "F = B^2/d.  Where F is the force, B is the flux density, and d is the air gap distance between the blocks.  For polished plates d is very small.  For iron the permeability is high and therefore so is B for modest n*I.  Put one layer of business cards between the two blocks and see what happens.  Witness science in action."

See3D, "This is very basic physics.  I understood what was going on in half a second.  I will explain it in as non technical terms as I can.  The two blocks of steel will become magnetized by the current pulse into the wire.  You will not detect an external magnetic field around the blocks after that, because the field is contained in a circular arrangement of the magnetic domains -- aligned in a circle with the wire channel as the center.  The field is reasonably large as long as the blocks are not forced apart.  As soon as they are forced apart (or if as Mark said, a piece of paper were inserted between them from the start), the field will have an air gap which reduces the strength of the magnet field.  Since this is not a permanent magnetic material, it can not stay magnetized to a high degree.  As the magnetic field strength gets smaller and smaller, the magnetic domains become more disordered.  The further the blocks are separated, the smaller the magnetic field, until there is only a very slight residual magnetic field left.  That is the slight magnetic field that is detected when putting the steel pieces together again.  In the good old days of horseshoe magnets (before strong rare earth magnets), there was always a iron "keeper" bar that was kept between the N ans S poles.  This was for the same reason.  If the keeper bar was removed without some other way to close the magnetic circuit, the horseshoe magnet would loose some of its power -- and that was from a more permanent magnet material."

And here is Yoda333 making a fool of himself, "Can we ever, at this website, see that there are a bunch of crackpots making statements here?  I mean, this really takes the cake.  Frankly, there really is no value in the comments section of this website.  It's a conglomeration of doubters that lurk here just for the opportunity to attempt to debunk something, and try to prove their own brilliance, even when they make fools of themselves in trying to do so.  What a waste of time.  You have been very patient with these same people Sterling, and now you finally have them in a corner on something they can't prove you wrong, and they are scrambling and referring to ridiculous notions of "Magnetic Remanence"!!!!!  LOL  Seriously folks, it doesn't get any better than this...  Total Shills, especially those that have in the past been given a badge for open mindedness amongst the doubters...  A plea only to gain position to further debase any good discussions.  I can't wait until these technologies make it to market.  Two things can happen.  1.  The Doubters here Eat Crow  2.  They all go away because they were being paid for the job of being Shills, and they no longer gain value from staying here and slinging negativity, so they go away.  Either way, I get really tired of watching you take a beating Sterling...  You don't deserve it, and it has become clear to me that you are a visionary, and that kind of spirit is not found in doubters like these.  You can point to past great men of extraordinary imagination all you want, but they will be forever skeptic as that is what they thrive on.  And once a new technology emerges that makes their arguments obsolete, I'm sure they will find something else to try to debunk! LOL."
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: SeaMonkey on October 03, 2014, 03:14:21 AM
We must not forget that what we call "knowledge"
regarding magnetism is largely observational theory.

What we do not know about magnetism outweighs
what we truly do know by several orders of magnitude.

Human character defects often prevent acquisition of
true knowledge.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 03, 2014, 04:10:20 AM
Quote
What we do not know about magnetism outweighs
what we truly do know by several orders of magnitude.

The truth is that you don't know what you don't know.  So that means you don't know if we have it all figured out or if we have a lot more to learn.  It certainly means that if you don't know what you don't know then you are not in any position to state "several orders of magnitude."

Why not start by trying to learn what we do know, instead of navel gazing about what we might not know?  That's the typical "short circuit approach" where a beginner that has very little understanding throws that line at someone that is knowledgeable.  You see it all the time, and it was used ineffectively for the QEG.

And please don't tell me that you do know how much we don't know because you got that information from the same "entities" that tell you all about the coming apocalypse and the war between good and evil and that Cabal stuff because my eyes will glaze over.

Quote
Human character defects often prevent acquisition of true knowledge.

I agree, that's why you have fiascoes like the QEG and hundreds or thousands of people out of pocket.  That's why you have people playing with coils and magnets for years without understanding how they work.  They even make "educational" clips.  Hence this thread to try to help some people.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: SeaMonkey on October 03, 2014, 05:47:29 AM
Anything which is classified as "theoretical" is an
admission that it really is unknown.

Although we may not know what we don't know;
we can be fairly certain that theories are frequently
subject to change as the unknowns become better
known.

To think of scientific theory as scientific fact would
be most unscientific.

Yes, I am well aware Miles.  Your eyes become glazed
over with Truth.  You might say that you have sort of
an intrinsic Truth Detector.  If you could only believe
your lying eyes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-NlR54PqLw), that is... 8)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 03, 2014, 06:11:15 AM

What we know are just experimental observations.  What we don't know are the most basic things.

There are lot of experiments showing the behaviour,properties and nature of magnetic fields.   But the most basic questions : What is a magnetic field?  What is it made of? - No one knows the answer.

Can we define magnetic field as 'cluster of magnetons emitted by moving electrons and held in position around magnet by magnetic black hole?'  (black hole or black pole?)

We are developing our knowledge without knowing basics.   Which is as bad as constructing a house without foundation, which ofcourse may collapse any time.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 03, 2014, 09:27:11 AM
You can define a magnetic field as a cloud of tiny purple honeybees swarming in tune to a Sosa march if you like. But if it doesn't help you observe, describe, calculate, control, engineer, or to predict future behaviour, then your definition isn't going to be much good.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 03, 2014, 03:34:26 PM
You can define a magnetic field as a cloud of tiny purple honeybees swarming in tune to a Sosa march if you like.


I don't think honeybees are swarming!

Another interesting (crazy) observation :

It doesnot look like moving electrons produce magnetic field.  If moving electron produces magnetic field, then magnetic field should also move with the electron producing it.   Hence we should feel the force or vibration of moving magnetic field externally near a coil.

But practically we observe that when a direct current is passed through a coil, we get a static magnetic field at the centre of  coil and we don't feel any force (or vibration)  of a moving magnetic field.

Does it mean that when electron starts moving, mother nature provides it with an armour in the form of magnetic field to protect it from attacking enemies??!!!  Is magnetic field  produced by moving electron or nature? (vaccuum)

Can anybody explain why a moving electron current in a coil produces a static magnetic field at the centre?

 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 03, 2014, 09:37:18 PM
What do you mean when you say "feel a force or vibration?"
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 04, 2014, 01:07:46 AM
What do you mean when you say "feel a force or vibration?"

What happens when you poke a straw man with a knitting needle?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 04, 2014, 03:44:06 AM
What do you mean when you say "feel a force or vibration?"

I have said 'force or vibration of a moving magnetic field'. 


If you pass an AC through a coil and take a iron piece near the coil, iron piece vibrates indicating that the magnetic field produced by coil is in some sort motion or oscillation.

But if you pass a DC through the coil and bring a iron piece near it, you won't feel any vibration of the iron piece and it simply gets attracted to the coil indicating that magnetic field is stagnant.

My question is why moving electrons in a DC produce static magnetic field in the coil? 

What happens if you hammer a crowbar ( mega needle ) into strawman's ass ?? :-\


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 04, 2014, 05:58:16 AM
A continuous flow of unchanging DC current will produce a continuous unchanging magnetic field.  Easily confirmed by experimental observation.

You want to get more technical?  Study this guy's clips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 04, 2014, 10:50:21 AM
A continuous flow of unchanging DC current will produce a continuous unchanging magnetic field.  Easily confirmed by experimental observation.


I know that a uniform DC produces unchanging magnetic field at the centre. 

Whether this unchanging flux remains static or rotates around a vertical axis following the path of moving electrons? When a moving electron produces magnetic field, the magnetic field should also move along with it, is it not?

Will the  magnetic field produced by a permanent magnet remains static or will it rotate around a vertical axis following the path of electrons producing that magnetic field?

If you don't understand my question- leave it - no problem.

The existance of magnetic field, transformation of electric field to magnetic field and other strange properties of magnetic field are beyond the scope of ordinary cracknuts. Better forget about all those things and enjoy playing with 'magnetic black holes'.


https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-moving-electron-produce-magnetic-field.184619/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vortex

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Marsing on October 04, 2014, 12:13:40 PM

someone said in TA thread that magnetic field is move at ~60x speed of light, magnetic field is not static but i dont know he said that for PM or electromagnet (coil) or both. i can not recall his name. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on October 04, 2014, 03:13:34 PM
I have said 'force or vibration of a moving magnetic field'. 


If you pass an AC through a coil and take a iron piece near the coil, iron piece vibrates indicating that the magnetic field produced by coil is in some sort motion or oscillation.

But if you pass a DC through the coil and bring a iron piece near it, you won't feel any vibration of the iron piece and it simply gets attracted to the coil indicating that magnetic field is stagnant.
There really is no difference between these two scenarios.

Quote
My question is why moving electrons in a DC produce static magnetic field in the coil? 
This is the pertinent question.

But I don't think the question is "why" as much as it is "how". I believe the magnetic field is produced because the electron field around the individual atoms become aligned with each other.

But how does applying a DC voltage/voltage cause this alignment? There does not seem to be a maximum alignment like there is with aligning domains in a core material.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: mondrasek on October 04, 2014, 05:39:17 PM
But I don't think the question is "why" as much as it is "how". I believe the magnetic field is produced because the electron field around the individual atoms become aligned with each other.

But how does applying a DC voltage/voltage cause this alignment? There does not seem to be a maximum alignment like there is with aligning domains in a core material.

I had not considered this before.  The relationship between current "flow" and the corresponding magnetic field "strength" increases as 1:1 (heating losses aside) as far as testing has shown?  There is no apparent, or theoretical limit?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 04, 2014, 06:09:59 PM
Newton II:

I could not fine the right clip to link to yesterday, but I found it today:

"Calculating the Magnetic Field due to a Moving Point Charge"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg&index=47 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg&index=47)

So for a moving point charge you can say that it is any value of charge, even the charge associated with a single electron.  If you watch the clip you will see that there is a magnetic field that envelopes the single moving electron and it moves along with the electron.

Magnetic fields are vectors with magnitude and direction.  If you have multiple magnetic field vectors at a single point in 3D space due to multiple moving electrons in a wire, then they all add together.

So, you do have a moving magnetic field for each moving electron.  So each distinct point in 3D space around the wire is affected by trillions and trillions of magnetic field vectors due to trillions and trillions of moving individual electrons.  The net result of all of these trillions and trillions of magnetic field vector additions when you have DC current is that you have a single unchanging magnetic field vector at a given point in 3D space.

It's as simple (or complicated) as that.

One of the myths is that when you hold two magnets with opposing poles next to each other and you feel the repulsion between the poles that you have "stressed space" in the region between the two opposite poles.  That's just a myth.  A person feels the repulsion and says, "that must be special stressed space."  The magnetic field vectors from each magnet are simply passing through the same 3D space and crossing paths without even being "aware" that the other magnet is there.  The magnetic field vectors are just "blindly" adding together to create a new net magnetic field with a new magnitude and direction at every point in 3D space.

Another myth is that people believe that something must be "circulating around" because they look at diagrams with magnetic field lines of force represented as circles with directional arrows.  It's just a myth self-created from looking at diagrams on paper.

You can just as easily feel forces between two charged objects due to an electric field between the two objects but that is a much rarer occurrence for experimenters so they don't even think about it.

You can "stress" space with electric fields and magnetic fields.  What actually is an electric field?  What actually is a magnetic field?   I don't know but it almost like going up to taste tester for a five star restaurant and asking him to describe the taste of water.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 04, 2014, 06:10:12 PM
Here is what people forget all the time:  The magnetic field doesn't just "magically appear" when you have current flowing.  It tales electrical WORK (voltage x current x time) to get the current flowing and create the magnetic field.  Where does that work go?  The answer is the work goes into the actual 3D space around the wire.  A certain value of magnetic field intensity in a one-centimeter cube of 3D space next to a wire with current flowing through it has a certain amount of stored energy associated with it.  There is literally energy stored in empty 3D space because of the existence of the magnetic field.  The same thing applies to electric fields.

Here is an analogy that I think is quite useful:   Think of a long straight wire.  Think of a long straight balloon.  Now put the wire inside the balloon.  Forget about the ends of the balloon and all that stuff.  It's a "magic" balloon with no ends.

Now, when there there is no current flowing through the wire the balloon is deflated.   When current flows through the wire, at the beginning you have to do some extra work to inflate the balloon.  Once the balloon is inflated to a certain diameter then there is no extra work required to keep the current flowing.   Can you picture that?   The inflated balloon is not changing in diameter either, so there is no extra work required to keep the balloon inflated.

The membrane of the balloon is under tension - it's stressed.  The inflated balloon represents a certain amount of stored energy per unit length of wire.

That "stressed balloon" is analogous to the stressed 3D space around the wire due to the presence of the magnetic field.

It's just stressed 3D space, there is nothing "flowing" there are not necessarily any "flowing particles" that some people what to believe exist.  I am no expert into the sub-atomic quantum realm and perhaps there is research going on there.  What I can say is that we CAN MEASURE the magnetic field and we UNDERSTAND that this represents stressed 3D space that stores energy, just like the inflated balloon stores energy.

Then when you shut off the current flow through the wire by opening a switch, the balloon deflates and gives back the energy that was originally expended to create it in the first place.  There is your high-voltage spike.  To be more precise, it is a small amount of continuing current flow that also manifests itself as a high-voltage spike.

One of the important lessons here is to "never take your eye off of the 'energy ball'"   A magnetic field in 3D space represents the storage of energy per unit volume of space.  Electrical energy was used to create that energy storage in 3D space and electrical energy is given back, or output, when the magnetic field collapses.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 04, 2014, 06:43:47 PM
Here is another story to ponder....

Yes, when you measure a static magnetic field around a wire with DC current flowing through it, it's actually the vector summation of trillions and trillions of moving magnetic field "sheaths" that surround the moving electrons in the wire.

Now, when you go to inflate your tire and you measure the tire pressure with a pressure gage, you measure 30 pounds per square inch.   In reality, that pressure is created by trillions and trillions (?) of oxygen and nitrogen and other molecules hitting the pressure transducer plate per second inside tire pressure gage.

So how often when you fill up your tires in a gas station do you say to yourself, "It's not really PSI, it's actually trillions of air molecules bouncing around and hitting the pressure transducer plate inside the tire pressure gage.?"

The answer is that you almost never say that to yourself.  Just like when you do experiments on the bench and you measure the magnetic field around an inductor or a bar magnet you don't have to always be thinking about the trillions and trillions of moving electrons.

These crazy myths and misconceptions about magnets and magnetism will live on forever.  But at least if you are a serious researcher and experimenter around here you should undertake to learn these things and accept them for the physical and verifiable reality that they represent so that you can do better and smarter experiments.  To say, "By default I want to believe in 'alternative' explanations because they are 'cooler'" is honestly just plain stupid.  This compulsion to "go against the grain" because you have a belief that you are supposed to go against the grain is ultimately counterproductive.  Do the research and experiments and figure things out for yourself.

One classic example of this is the stupid "series bifilar" coil.  You see people do experimental setups where by default they wind their coil in a series bifilar configuration.  In 99% of the cases it's nonsensical electronics quackery in action.  Whether you just make an ordinary coil or make a "series bifilar" coil makes no difference.  The only thing that counts is the number of turns.

People don't even know why they are winding a series bifilar coil.  I have to assume that the main reason they do it is because everybody else is doing it.  That is a HUGE mistake and shows people not wanting to actually understand.  That is a problem if you are supposed to be doing research.  This kind of incorrect way of thinking can be traced back as one of the root causes of the Quantum Energy Generator quackery and the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars given to con artists.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 04, 2014, 08:18:26 PM
a moving electron produces magnetic field, the magnetic field should also move along with it, is it not?
Fundamental misunderstanding: electron does not move this way!! The best explanation is here, and believe it or not, this is the best explanation IMHO:

Electrons in metals do not hold still.  They wiggle around constantly even when there is zero electric current.  However, this movement is not really a flow, it is more like a vibration, or like a high-speed wandering movement...
see the whole article here:
 http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html (http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html)
and more K-6 revelations... where K stands for kindergarten
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: lumen on October 04, 2014, 08:38:54 PM
What happens when you poke a straw man with a knitting needle?

He says hay?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 04, 2014, 09:16:58 PM

@Milehigh

You have done a smart research work. Hats off for that.

1) Now we agree that a moving electron produces magnetic field which moves along with electron.   

2) The magnetic fields  produced by infinite number of electrons add together resulting in a external strong magnetic field which seems   
     to be static but theoritically will have a vectorial movement.

3) When moving electrons are stopped, the stored energy in electrons is dissipated as a EM wave.

This may lead to another thinking that is magnetic field produced by an electron analogous to the kinetic energy developed by a solid moving mass?

In mechanics a solid mass 'm'  moving with velocity 'v' develops  kinetic energy  of  ½ mv2.   But when you supply energy to the electrons by applying voltage, the electron  cannot store energy in the form of   ½ mv2  because its mass is negligible.  So it creates a magnetic field to store the supplied energy.   When electrons are stopped, energy is released as EM wave.

So, if you study the magnetic field carefully you will know what is energy.

Does it make any sense or just a blah-blah?
 

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 04, 2014, 10:20:59 PM
Charge. It is the motion of charge, not of electrons themselves, that makes the field.

Electrons carry the unit negative charge, by definition and measurement, but as Qwert points out above the electrons themselves, for example in metal wires, don't need to move that fast. I think the situation with charge and moving electrons is kind of like "Newton's balls", where units of charge (the momentum of the "input ball") are transferred across the system very rapidly, even though the individual "balls" don't move hardly at all.
Magnetic fields can be produced by moving ions, both positive and negative. So it is the motion of the charge, not the motion of the charge +carriers+, that produces the field. Charge, motion, field: One thing. One.

OK, carry on.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 04, 2014, 10:53:31 PM
Charge. It is the motion of charge, not of electrons themselves, that makes the field.

Electrons carry the unit negative charge, by definition and measurement, but as Qwert points out above the electrons themselves, for example in metal wires, don't need to move that fast. I think the situation with charge and moving electrons is kind of like "Newton's balls", where units of charge (the momentum of the "input ball") are transferred across the system very rapidly, even though the individual "balls" don't move hardly at all.
Magnetic fields can be produced by moving ions, both positive and negative. So it is the motion of the charge, not the motion of the charge +carriers+, that produces the field. Charge, motion, field: One thing. One.

OK, carry on.

So the movement of many charges (ions) in a magnet is what produces the continual magnetic field in a magnet?  Why can't these charges be depleted?

Liberty
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 04, 2014, 11:48:13 PM
Newton II:

Yes, we agree that a moving electron has a magnetic field that "moves" with it.  Note however that I put "moves" in quotations.  The magnetic field does not literally move with the the electron.  What really happens is the moving electron changes the local magnetic field at every point in space around the moving electron as it moves.  In other words, if you are at a fixed point in space and an electron moves past you, you experience a changing magnetic field.   It's a subtle but important difference.

Think of sound waves.  A police car drives past you with the siren on.  You hear the siren first low, then very loud, and then low again.   The sound changes in volume as the police car passes you, but the sound is not literally "moving" with the police car.  The police car siren is emitting a fixed unmoving sound at every instant in time.  This is a continuous process.  Think of a boat moving through the water as another example.  The moving electron causes a "local disturbance" in the magnetic field.

When the moving electrons stop the energy contained in the magnetic field has to go somewhere.  In most cases the electrons move past the "stop point" because of the electrical inertia associated with the whole process.  That's the high-voltage spike.  It does not necessarily mean that the energy will become an EM wave.

Quote
In mechanics a solid mass 'm'  moving with velocity 'v' develops  kinetic energy  of  ½ mv2.   But when you supply energy to the electrons by applying voltage, the electron  cannot store energy in the form of   ½ mv2  because its mass is negligible.  So it creates a magnetic field to store the supplied energy.   When electrons are stopped, energy is released as EM wave.

There is a direct correspondence.  Mechanical inertia is mass x velocity.  Electrical inertia is inductance x current flow.  So for an inductor with current flowing through it, the magnetic flux generated is effectively the electrical inertia.  Think of this:  You energize an inductor and put energy into it by applying (voltage x current x time).  That creates a magnetic field.  The current flow and the magnetic field are directly related to each other  (current flow -> magnetic field).  So if you try to stop the current flow then the magnetic field "takes over" to induce the current flow (magnetic filed -> current flow.)  They are so closely related that one becomes the other and vice-versa.

TK:

There are a lot of misunderstandings about electric fields and charge also.  In a generator, there is no "charge" in the wires.  There is an induced electric field that pushes the electrons through the wires, without any net charge in the wires themselves.  Likewise, some people talk about voltage being related to charge density, but that's only for static electricity.  You have voltage in the windings of a generator with no excess charge density.  There are two sources of an electric field, the static electric field associated with electrostatics, and the "dynamic" electric field associated with changing magnetic fields.  A so-so analogy for current flow in a wire because of a dynamically induced electric field might be a simple vertical shaft with balls falling through a gravity field.  The gravity field is like the electric field and the balls are like the electrons.

Liberty:

The source of the magnetic field in a magnet is the trillions and trillions of electrons orbiting iron atoms where they are all orbiting in the same rotational direction.  Each one acts like a little tiny magnet.  The electrons spinning in tight little circles still create a magnetic field in the same way that an electron creates a magnetic field when moving in a straight line.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 05, 2014, 02:54:31 AM
I have a question.  If you have a piece of 12ga. copper wire that has been used in operation with heavy currents (not over the wire's rated capacity though) for say 50 years.  If you take a new piece of the same ga. wire and compare the two...is there any differences that can be observed from the years of electron "movement" or "vibrations" in the old wire vs. the new?  In other words, and I am not talking about the elements degrading the insulation, or anything associated with over heating of the old wire, is there any chemical or physical change in the wire, like density, or any other change as a result of the electron movement in it for all of those years?

I have heard electricians use the term that an old wire was "worn out" and he was not talking about the insulation as it was bare copper wire.  What does this mean?  And, is it a result of electron movement causing degradation of the molecules in the copper wire?  Or, under a powerful electron microscope, would we see no changes in the old, used wire vs the new wire?  Does the old wire's resistance increase somehow over time and the resulting heating cause this degradation?  If so, what changes occur in the wire to cause it's resistance to increase?

Thanks, I am learning a lot in this topic thus far.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 05, 2014, 04:49:28 AM
Why can't these charges be depleted?
Liberty


I think that is a great question.

In mechanics, the kinetic energy of a moving mass is defined as  "energy possessed by virtue of its velocity" and its magnitude is 1/2mv2

And potential energy of same mass is defined as "energy possessed by virtue of its position" and its magnitude is 'mgh'  where 'h' is its height above the ground. (reference)

So, when magnetic field produced by a moving charge is analogous to kinectic energy,  the static charge should be analogous to potential energy.

A  moving charge looses its kinetic energy which is magnetic field, when the charge is stopped. But it will still have potential energy in the form of electric charge.  This potential energy will be lost only if this charge literally 'falls' on the reference which is responsible for imparting potential energy on it.

The question here is,  a charge possesses potential energy with reference to what?  and who imparts it potential energy by  'lifting'  it above the reference?

I think this question is being dealt with in quantum mechanics since the very birth of quantum mechanics.  Don't know whether 'quantum mechanists'  have got the answer yet.

If this question is answered we will know the secret of this universe.

And it will be a revelation of 100G where 'G' stands for God.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 05, 2014, 09:59:12 AM
And it will be a revelation of 100G where 'G' stands for God.
I guess a good example to understand the concept of moving charge at DC while electrons only push their neighbors is the known "domino effect" where domino pieces represent electrons: they need only small movement to transfer energy along their path: more rows have more energy, also taller pieces have more energy: one stands for I, another one for V.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 05, 2014, 02:02:08 PM
Strength of magnetic field produced by a coil depends on number turns also. 
 
Think that you have a superconductor wire at room temperature.  Make a coil with it having 'X' number of turns. Pass a DC of 'Y' amperes through it applying a voltage of 'Z'. The power input to the coil is 'YZ' watts.  Hence energy stored in magnetic field is also 'YZ' watts because coil is superconducting and no losses.
 
1) When number of turns is 'X',  input power is YZ and power of magnetic field is also YZ
 
2) Increase number of turns to '10X' adding additional wire, input power is 'YZ' and power of magnetic field is '10YZ'
 
3) Increase number of turns to '100X',  input power is 'YZ' and power of magnetic field is '100YZ'
 
4) Increase number of turns to 'infinite X',  input power is YZ and power of magnetic field is infinite!!  (coil is superconducting hence
    no resistance even with infinite turns)

 
Confusing....???? :-[

 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on October 05, 2014, 02:35:23 PM
Bill,

I don't believe there is any physical change in the wire from extended use. Sounds like a myth if some are saying there is.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on October 05, 2014, 02:40:39 PM
Strength of magnetic field produced by a coil depends on number turns also. 

That's academic, but what causes the field in a straight piece of wire?

Is it caused by the movement of the drift (free) electrons or the electron cloud in each atom? Or is it the alignment of the individual electrons to all "spin" (http://www.markusehrenfried.de/science/physics/hermes/whatisspin.html) with their axis' in the same plane?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 05, 2014, 04:46:46 PM
That's academic, but what causes the field in a straight piece of wire?

Is it caused by the movement of the drift (free) electrons or the electron cloud in each atom? Or is it the alignment of the individual electrons to all "spin" (http://www.markusehrenfried.de/science/physics/hermes/whatisspin.html) with their axis' in the same plane?


May be it is same as the case of schrodinger's cat, dead and alive at the same time depending on circumstances  because for DC, electrons have to move but for AC,  electrons only have to vibrate in tune with the changing magnetic field causing vibration.

Don't know the exact reason. Some knowledgeable person has to explain.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 05, 2014, 04:53:47 PM
Bill,

I don't believe there is any physical change in the wire from extended use. Sounds like a myth if some are saying there is.

Thanks.  So, any change in the wire was due to external exposure to the elements and not any internal molecular change due to the movement/vibration of electrons.  Would this mean that the electrons move/vibrate in the empty space between the atoms that make up the copper and therefore have no effect on them?  Would it be like hitting a long pipe with a hammer and having the sound vibrations moving along the pipe from end to end?  I am having trouble visualizing this.  So then, the magnetic field surrounding a wire with moving/vibrating electrons is due to the electrons themselves aligning together to create the field and not the atoms of the copper conductor itself being manipulated in any way?  Then this would make the copper conductor an inert host to the activity of the electrons I suppose.

Now I find it harder to understand, if there is no interaction with the conductors atoms, then why do some materials act as conductors and some insulators?  If these vibrations occur in the empty space in the structure of the material then it should not matter what that material is, but we all know that it does.  Materials that make good conductors of electricity, as we all know, make good conductors of heat as well.  This would make me think that the molecular structure of the conductor material is important, but if the electron activity within the conductor has no interaction with the atoms of the material itself, then why would this be?

I just went through all of my electronics books over here where they discuss atomic structure, electrons, conductors and insulators, and I could not find any answer for this.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on October 05, 2014, 05:06:10 PM
Bill,

Metals are good conductors because they exhibit free (loosely bound) electrons in their structure. Insulators don't have free electrons, so they are poor conductors of electricity.

See this pdf (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feecs.oregonstate.edu%2F~traylor%2Fece112%2Flectures%2Felectrons_and_conductors.pdf&ei=l10xVOT8FKGziwLMwYGgDg&usg=AFQjCNHvbtX6eslqmqTjDRHvWTBMo5qrjw&sig2=yPCFS7NaqieGjXjQUNX_Xw&bvm=bv.76802529,d.cGE&cad=rja) and this Hyperphysics page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/conins.html).

Just because the free electrons in a wire are constantly scattered and colliding as they make their way from one end to the other, doesn't mean the wire becomes worn out. For the electrons that do leave the wire, there are an equal number entering.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: SeaMonkey on October 05, 2014, 06:38:40 PM
Quote from: poynt99
I don't believe there is any physical change in the wire from extended use. Sounds like a myth if some are saying there is.

That's one I've not heard.

Although, it is reported that 'work hardened' copper is not
as conductive as freshly annealed soft copper.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 06:57:30 PM
(snip)
TK:

There are a lot of misunderstandings about electric fields and charge also.  In a generator, there is no "charge" in the wires.  There is an induced electric field that pushes the electrons through the wires, without any net charge in the wires themselves.  Likewise, some people talk about voltage being related to charge density, but that's only for static electricity.  You have voltage in the windings of a generator with no excess charge density.  There are two sources of an electric field, the static electric field associated with electrostatics, and the "dynamic" electric field associated with changing magnetic fields.  A so-so analogy for current flow in a wire because of a dynamically induced electric field might be a simple vertical shaft with balls falling through a gravity field.  The gravity field is like the electric field and the balls are like the electrons.

(snip)
MileHigh
Ah... er.... um.... almost.
There is only one field, the EM field. It is the relationship between charge and motion.  There is no difference between a "static" electrical field as in "electrostatics" and the "dynamic"  electric field associated with changing magnetic fields. A generator does in fact separate charge and in a current-carrying wire, charge is indeed separated. Don't believe me? Connect a capacitor across the output of your DC generator and watch what happens.
The changing magnetic field in the generator produces a movement of charge. What happens in the wire that is distant from the changing fields in the generator? The charge pressure that is created by the generator "pushing" on local charges in the wire is transferred -- like charge repels like -- down the wire and at the distal end you see a voltage: charge pressure.
The main differences between "electrostatic" charge and "dynamic" charge (current) are the number of charges involved and whether they are moving or not. A Coulomb is a _huge_ amount of charge. Put a Coulomb of charge onto something where it will be retained and you will have huge electric field effects associated with it. Make that thing smaller and the charge density will increase: voltage increases: until it leaks off due to isolation breakdown and conduction. Put a Coulomb of charge through a conductor every second, and you have one Ampere of current flowing and a large magnetic field associated with it. Flow that current into a capacitor and watch the charge pressure accumulate (voltage on the cap rises). Same field, same pressure, same voltage phenomena, whether "electrostatic" or "dynamic".
You can have currents that consist of beams of electrons in free space, as in Cathode Ray tubes. You can have currents that are transferred by conductive plasmas of ions, as in neon tubes. You can even have currents transferred by large ions dissolved in fluids, as in electrophoresis. But in each case it is the _charge_ that is moved by external fields (which result in the charge pressure gradient, AKA potential, AKA tension, AKA voltage), and which drags whatever material carrier along with it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 05, 2014, 07:01:46 PM
And what is a charge?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 07:06:36 PM
And what is a charge?

That which is moved by the field.

Charge, field, motion, one thing. One.


Now you might as well ask "what is matter" or "what does God really look like".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 07:10:16 PM
And what is a charge?
Seriously? It is a fundamental property of matter, one of the "quantum numbers" that describes certain kinds of subatomic particles. It is a conserved quantity, just like momentum or energy. It is that property of matter that causes the associated particle to move in certain ways under certain conditions. It comes in two "polarities" that we arbitrarily call positive and negative. Charge is quantized, which means it comes in discrete amounts, the smallest of which is the Unit charge, and the electron is the particle which carries the Unit Negative Charge.

What is "wetness"?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 05, 2014, 07:19:19 PM
Bill,

Metals are good conductors because they exhibit free (loosely bound) electrons in their structure. Insulators don't have free electrons, so they are poor conductors of electricity.

See this pdf (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feecs.oregonstate.edu%2F~traylor%2Fece112%2Flectures%2Felectrons_and_conductors.pdf&ei=l10xVOT8FKGziwLMwYGgDg&usg=AFQjCNHvbtX6eslqmqTjDRHvWTBMo5qrjw&sig2=yPCFS7NaqieGjXjQUNX_Xw&bvm=bv.76802529,d.cGE&cad=rja) and this Hyperphysics page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/conins.html).

Just because the free electrons in a wire are constantly scattered and colliding as they make their way from one end to the other, doesn't mean the wire becomes worn out. For the electrons that do leave the wire, there are an equal number entering.

.99:

Thank you.  So, does this mean that the "charge" is like the example that MH gave of the Newton's ball arrangement then?  An electron enters the conductor and collides with (repels) one of those loose free electrons in the conductor and bumps it down along the conductor into other free electrons, etc, etc.  The Hyperphysics link described this as a chain reaction.  Your links, combined with MH's example now make this a lot more clear to me. 

Thank you very much both of you.  I am a lot closer to understanding what is really going on which, of course, could be dangerous.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 07:51:09 PM
Bill,

Metals are good conductors because they exhibit free (loosely bound) electrons in their structure. Insulators don't have free electrons, so they are poor conductors of electricity.

See this pdf (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feecs.oregonstate.edu%2F~traylor%2Fece112%2Flectures%2Felectrons_and_conductors.pdf&ei=l10xVOT8FKGziwLMwYGgDg&usg=AFQjCNHvbtX6eslqmqTjDRHvWTBMo5qrjw&sig2=yPCFS7NaqieGjXjQUNX_Xw&bvm=bv.76802529,d.cGE&cad=rja) and this Hyperphysics page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/conins.html).

Just because the free electrons in a wire are constantly scattered and colliding as they make their way from one end to the other, doesn't mean the wire becomes worn out. For the electrons that do leave the wire, there are an equal number entering.

True enough... but....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 05, 2014, 08:07:33 PM
Bill:

I can actually offer up a pet theory about your old wire story from the electricians.  I have not done any searching on this at all.  My pet theory is that it may be possible that the metal mixtures in some very old wire may be 'off' or the wire itself was poorly manufactured.  For example, when the metal was made into wire it was not a homogeneous mixture, or they used cheap and inferior copper with too many impurities, etc.

So over lots of time, say 50 years, some of the copper or aluminum atoms started to crystallize.  Or the impurities started to crystallize.  Atoms can actually slowly migrate through the metal over time to gather together.  That physical rearrangement of some of the atoms in the wire would cause micro-fissures or perhaps even very fine cracks visible under a microscope.  Or, the fact that the wire was partially crystallized means that the moment you handled it then fissures or cracks could happen.  The net result would be that the wire would be more resistive because the cracks would reduce the cross-sectional area in various places along the wire.  It's just a guess.

Bill/TK:

No, it was TK (I think) and others that suggested the "Newton's ball" model for current flow were "entering electrons" "push" against neighboring electrons to give you current flow because of the electrical repulsion between electrons.

I don't believe that model is correct.  What I stated is that all of the electrons in a wire will be induced to move at the same time because of the presence of an electric field in the wire,  The electric field snakes down the wire and induces all of the free electrons in the wire to move in unison.

So the electrons in the case of current flowing in a wire are not pushing against each other.  They are all just haplessly being pushed around at the same time by the presence of an electric field.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 05, 2014, 08:49:00 PM
True enough... but....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration)

"Electromigration reliability of a wire (Black's equation) Main article: Black's equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%27s_equation) At the end of the 1960s J. R. Black developed an empirical model to estimate the MTTF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTTF) (mean time to failure) of a wire, taking electromigration into consideration. Since then, the formula has gained popularity in the semiconductor industry. :[3][5]

"The temperature of the conductor appears in the exponent, i.e. it strongly affects the MTTF of the interconnect. For an interconnect to remain reliable as the temperature rises, the maximum tolerable current density of the conductor must necessarily decrease. However, as interconnect technology advances at the nanometer scale, the validity of Black's equation becomes increasingly questionable."


TK:


This is exactly what I was talking about in theory except, it does not appear to be a large problem until you get down to a very small scale.  Although, it appears that Black developed this equation to determine the reliability of a wire over time so that seems to indicate that some changes are taking place inside the conductor.

Possibly MH's post about the impurities in the copper (or other conductor) affecting its properties over time is the basis for this maybe?  As he posted, when these micro cracks appear this would raise the resistance of the conductor and therefore possibly cause some heating which might further degrade the conductivity of the wire, etc. (Domino effect)  Very interesting stuff here.

I know I am going a little far afield of the topic but,  I really want to know exactly (if possible) what is happening inside a conductor when electrons vibrate within it or move through it.  After all, it is this activity that creates our magnetic field around these conductors right?

Sorry that I credited MH with the Newton's ball example that you posted.  (Thanks MH for pointing that out)

This is a great topic here fellows.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on October 05, 2014, 09:20:47 PM



 Is there such a thing as "skin effect" where there is more conduction on
the surface of a conductor? Multi-strand wire ought to have good performance.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 05, 2014, 09:54:59 PM


 Is there such a thing as "skin effect" where there is more conduction on
the surface of a conductor? Multi-strand wire ought to have good performance.

I believe that multi-strand wire has less resistance than a solid wire of the same diameter.  (I think)  Does this mean that the strands are insulated individually themselves from each other like magnet wire?  Or, is it just a bunch of small, bare wires (all shorted together) having more additive surface area?  I guess I am being lazy here as I could just look this up.

Bill

ETA  I just read that due to the skin effect, multi-strand wire will have less resistance as most of the current flows along the surface of the individual wires.  I have no idea if this is true or not but googled it and read this in several places.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 05, 2014, 10:51:27 PM
Seriously? It is a fundamental property of matter, one of the "quantum numbers" that describes certain kinds of subatomic particles. It is a conserved quantity, just like momentum or energy. It is that property of matter that causes the associated particle to move in certain ways under certain conditions. It comes in two "polarities" that we arbitrarily call positive and negative. Charge is quantized, which means it comes in discrete amounts, the smallest of which is the Unit charge, and the electron is the particle which carries the Unit Negative Charge.

What is "wetness"?




I got that more or less. But than as Point. asked - Why is magnetic field around a conductor with a dc current static?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 01:50:07 AM



I got that more or less. But than as Point. asked - Why is magnetic field around a conductor with a dc current static?
An unchanging DC current, perhaps you mean? I can take my DC current of one amp, increase it to two amps, and while I am increasing the current, the magnetic field also increases.
You have got to get past these "why" questions, though. Why is there air? To fill up basketballs with, of course.

Charge, motion and field are related by a rigorously defined set of relationships that are mathematically precise. These relationships are contained in Maxwell's Equations, the Biot-Savart force law, and the Lorentz force law. Why do these relationships exist? So that there will be air to fill up basketballs with, of course.

Here, knock yourself out. (MH, you  might also be interested in taking a look at this document. Warning: math ahead.)

http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~mgc/EM1sec5.pdf

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 01:51:54 AM
I believe that multi-strand wire has less resistance than a solid wire of the same diameter.  (I think)  Does this mean that the strands are insulated individually themselves from each other like magnet wire?  Or, is it just a bunch of small, bare wires (all shorted together) having more additive surface area?  I guess I am being lazy here as I could just look this up.

Bill

ETA  I just read that due to the skin effect, multi-strand wire will have less resistance as most of the current flows along the surface of the individual wires.  I have no idea if this is true or not but googled it and read this in several places.

Litz wire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 01:57:09 AM


 Is there such a thing as "skin effect" where there is more conduction on
the surface of a conductor? Multi-strand wire ought to have good performance.
Yes, and "skin depth" is related to the frequency of the AC current being conducted. The higher the frequency the shallower this depth, in most materials. This is, in part, why people can get away with taking the discharge of a high voltage Tesla coil to their body. The current may be quite high... I have lit up incandescent light bulbs with body-conducted Tesla coil current -- but it travels on the surface of the skin rather than through the body. As long as the points of entry and exit are protected from the direct spark, one feels nothing.
And this is indeed why Litz wire is often used in coils that are to operate at high frequencies.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on October 06, 2014, 03:55:13 AM
You have got to get past these "why" questions, though.
I disagree. The how is the most interesting part in my opinion.

Once the field is there, how to calculate its strength and everything else about it is "old hat" so to speak.

Every text and web page I've looked at seems to skirt around the actual mechanism of how the field is created. I'm sure however that there is a simple explanation. ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 05:21:00 AM
Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 01:50:07 AM (http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg419321/#msg419321)<blockquote>You have got to get past these "why" questions, though.</blockquote>
I disagree. The how is the most interesting part in my opinion.

Once the field is there, how to calculate its strength and everything else about it is "old hat" so to speak.

Every text and web page I've looked at seems to skirt around the actual mechanism of how the field is created. I'm sure however that there is a simple explanation. ;)

See what you did there? "How" and "why" are not really the same question.
As I understand it, there are a few "free parameters"  in the modern physical description of reality. Not many, only like sixteen or something like that. Everything else takes its calculated or derived value from the seemingly arbitrary values we see of these free parameters. Nobody knows just "why" these parameters take on the values they do, but what is known is that if any of them were even slightly different, the world would be very much different. For example, let the fine structure constant be only a few percent different... and no stars can form. The situation is kind of like Euclid's Axioms. Nobody knows "why", on a perfect plane, two parallel lines never intersect. But it's easy to see _how_ that happens (or rather doesn't happen) and to use that fact to prove, with mathematical certainty, other theorems about geometry.

Sure, the explanation you seek is simple. If it were otherwise... we would not be around to see it. Eventually, when we ask "why" something in Physics is the way it is, we bump up against the Anthropic Principle, weak or strong. And as you know these explanations are less than satisfactory.

So, humans invented Religion. God did it, because He wanted it to be that way. See, it says so right here in the (insert favorite holy book here).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 06, 2014, 06:12:37 AM
Sure, the explanation you seek is simple. If it were otherwise... we would not be around to see it. Eventually, when we ask "why" something in Physics is the way it is, we bump up against the Anthropic Principle, weak or strong. And as you know these explanations are less than satisfactory.

You are absolutely right.   Sun always rises from the East and not from the West -   "why?" -  because God feels that East is better than West!!  (Waste!!)





Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 06, 2014, 08:25:14 AM
Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 01:50:07 AM (http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg419321/#msg419321)<blockquote>You have got to get past these "why" questions, though.</blockquote>
See what you did there? "How" and "why" are not really the same question.
As I understand it, there are a few "free parameters"  in the modern physical description of reality. Not many, only like sixteen or something like that. Everything else takes its calculated or derived value from the seemingly arbitrary values we see of these free parameters. Nobody knows just "why" these parameters take on the values they do, but what is known is that if any of them were even slightly different, the world would be very much different. For example, let the fine structure constant be only a few percent different... and no stars can form. The situation is kind of like Euclid's Axioms. Nobody knows "why", on a perfect plane, two parallel lines never intersect. But it's easy to see _how_ that happens (or rather doesn't happen) and to use that fact to prove, with mathematical certainty, other theorems about geometry.

Sure, the explanation you seek is simple. If it were otherwise... we would not be around to see it. Eventually, when we ask "why" something in Physics is the way it is, we bump up against the Anthropic Principle, weak or strong. And as you know these explanations are less than satisfactory.

So, humans invented Religion. God did it, because He wanted it to be that way. See, it says so right here in the (insert favorite holy book here).


Ok I am asking because I want some answers from you guys with much more knowledge.
I agree with what you say about known parameters but there must exist a physical reality - now if we have a varying DC flow it has to be flow of something. Is it a flow of some primary particles or what. Could it be flow in both direction so we have an impression of a static field.
You guys have much more experience -at least some of you, I am sure you asked these questions to yourselves.
A field surely is made of something.



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 10:54:26 AM
Argh. Charge, motion, field: one thing. One.

What is moving? Charge. What is the smallest chunk of charge? The Unit Charge. Where are these charge chunks? The Negative one is carried by and is inseparable from the electron. The positive one is carried by the proton, and also the positron (the electron's antiparticle). Normally we never actually see those positive charge carrying particles because the proton is buried deep within the nucleus of atoms and the positron is only made in energetic reactions and doesn't stick around very long. So the positive charges we see, like on the top of a positive Van De Graaff machine, are actually "holes"... deficiencies in electrons, places where electrons should be to make everything neutral, but for some reason they aren't there.
OK, now in wires carrying current, you can think of the charge moving fast through the "electron gas" of conduction band electrons, like the momentum moves through a Newton's Balls system, or if it is easier you can think of the electrons themselves flowing along in the wire. Either way, the current (moving charge) is pushed along by the fact that at one end of the wire there is more negative charge than at the other. This of course also means that there is more _positive charge_ at the other end of the wire-- holes where electrons should be.
The reason metals don't flow and collapse from all this electron charge moving around is because there are a bloody _lot_ of electrons, a Coulomb is a huge number of them, and even with currents of kilo or megaAmperes we are still only moving a tiny fraction of the electrons in the wire.
Now, when you move a charge you get an associated magnetic field around it. The field has geometry and strength that is determined by the path and speed of the moving charge. You can think of it like the bow wave ahead of a moving boat. Each moving charge has its tiny "bow wave" of a magnetic field circling around the path of  motion. (But what acts as the "water" in this analogy? That's a very deep question.) But there are many many many charges moving in even the smallest currents. So if you were really tiny and could watch your wire, and a tiny single charge came by, being pushed from behind by MH's "field" or by charge pressure from the charges behind it (same thing) you would see a bump on your field detector as the charge came by. So a DC current--- a single moving charge -- generates a dynamic, changing field at your fixed location as the charge moves past. But there are many many many charges flowing in the tiniest real DC current, so you see what looks like a strong, static field at your measurement point, as the charges flow past so many and so fast your finest instrument can't tell them from a continuous flow of homogeneous fluid.

Now we do know why, or rather how, a boat makes a bow wave. You can't really move through the water without making one and the faster you go the bigger the wave. Charges make magnetic fields as they move relative to the observer. If the observer moves along with the charge... you don't see the magnetic field (because the field just describes how a thing will move and you are already moving that way) but you do see the electric field from the charge which isn't moving with respect to you. Now that duality of electric and magnetic fields, discriminated only by relative motion, is, to me, a grand mystery of the Universe. "Why" does that happen? Well, some people believe that that question can be answered in a meaningful way, and that's why they go out and build particle accelerators and learn complex mathematics. I just look around in awe, myself, and give thanks that things are the way they are. Maybe they could be different... but I doubt it.


eta: The electron's charge cannot be removed from it, but an electron isn't "just" a packet of the Unit Negative charge. It has mass and spin angular momentum as well. What is really weird is that it does not appear to have a "size"... it is considered a point particle, or a probability cloud.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 06, 2014, 03:00:42 PM
I have few interesting (crazy) questions:

1)  If you charge a van de graph generator to full extent, fix it on a truck and run the truck with 100km/hr speed will the generator sphere
     create a 'mega magnetic field'?  Because moving charges should create magnetic field.   If not 'Why'?

2)  Negative and positive charges are characteristically  opposite charges. So, when a moving negative charge produces magnetic field, a
     moving positive charge should produce anti-magnetic field.  But it just produces a magnetic field in opposite direction corresponding to
     the negative charge flow. 'Why'?   

3)  When moving charges (current) produces a magnetic field, reversely a moving magnetic field should produce an electric current. That is
     the principle used in an Electric generator.  But all generators are AC generators (alternators)  in which the current is first generated
     only in AC form  and later converted to DC by using split ring commutator.   A moving magnetic field cannot straightaway produce a
     DC.   'Why?'     
 
Can any genious answer?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 06, 2014, 03:52:20 PM
Argh. Charge, motion, field: one thing. One.

What is moving? Charge. What is the smallest chunk of charge? The Unit Charge. Where are these charge chunks? The Negative one is carried by and is inseparable from the electron. The positive one is carried by the proton, and also the positron (the electron's antiparticle). Normally we never actually see those positive charge carrying particles because the proton is buried deep within the nucleus of atoms and the positron is only made in energetic reactions and doesn't stick around very long. So the positive charges we see, like on the top of a positive Van De Graaff machine, are actually "holes"... deficiencies in electrons, places where electrons should be to make everything neutral, but for some reason they aren't there.
OK, now in wires carrying current, you can think of the charge moving fast through the "electron gas" of conduction band electrons, like the momentum moves through a Newton's Balls system, or if it is easier you can think of the electrons themselves flowing along in the wire. Either way, the current (moving charge) is pushed along by the fact that at one end of the wire there is more negative charge than at the other. This of course also means that there is more _positive charge_ at the other end of the wire-- holes where electrons should be.
The reason metals don't flow and collapse from all this electron charge moving around is because there are a bloody _lot_ of electrons, a Coulomb is a huge number of them, and even with currents of kilo or megaAmperes we are still only moving a tiny fraction of the electrons in the wire.
Now, when you move a charge you get an associated magnetic field around it. The field has geometry and strength that is determined by the path and speed of the moving charge. You can think of it like the bow wave ahead of a moving boat. Each moving charge has its tiny "bow wave" of a magnetic field circling around the path of  motion. (But what acts as the "water" in this analogy? That's a very deep question.) But there are many many many charges moving in even the smallest currents. So if you were really tiny and could watch your wire, and a tiny single charge came by, being pushed from behind by MH's "field" or by charge pressure from the charges behind it (same thing) you would see a bump on your field detector as the charge came by. So a DC current--- a single moving charge -- generates a dynamic, changing field at your fixed location as the charge moves past. But there are many many many charges flowing in the tiniest real DC current, so you see what looks like a strong, static field at your measurement point, as the charges flow past so many and so fast your finest instrument can't tell them from a continuous flow of homogeneous fluid.

Now we do know why, or rather how, a boat makes a bow wave. You can't really move through the water without making one and the faster you go the bigger the wave. Charges make magnetic fields as they move relative to the observer. If the observer moves along with the charge... you don't see the magnetic field (because the field just describes how a thing will move and you are already moving that way) but you do see the electric field from the charge which isn't moving with respect to you. Now that duality of electric and magnetic fields, discriminated only by relative motion, is, to me, a grand mystery of the Universe. "Why" does that happen? Well, some people believe that that question can be answered in a meaningful way, and that's why they go out and build particle accelerators and learn complex mathematics. I just look around in awe, myself, and give thanks that things are the way they are. Maybe they could be different... but I doubt it.


eta: The electron's charge cannot be removed from it, but an electron isn't "just" a packet of the Unit Negative charge. It has mass and spin angular momentum as well. What is really weird is that it does not appear to have a "size"... it is considered a point particle, or a probability cloud.

Wonderful evidence of an intelligent designer (creator) that perfectly formed what we are just beginning to understand, just how He designed things to work in the universe.  We have the opportunity to personally come to understand and know what that intelligent engineer (creator) of perfection knows, and what he can further reveal to us and teach us about His universe and ourselves?  A close relationship with the great engineer of the universe: (Jesus Christ) that engineered the functioning of the electron, the magnetic fields, and the entire atomic world and universe.  To gain more knowledge and understanding from the original source of all knowledge and wisdom and power.  The Alpha and Omega.  (The beginning and the end).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on October 06, 2014, 04:23:14 PM
Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 01:50:07 AM (http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg419321/#msg419321)<blockquote>You have got to get past these "why" questions, though.</blockquote>
See what you did there? "How" and "why" are not really the same question.
I agree, and I made reference to that in a previous post.

However bboj was making reference to my question, which was "how", even though he used "why". So I suspect that is what he meant.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation, I do agree, based on the reading I have been doing. So, my simple explanation is as follows:

When a DC voltage is applied across a wire, the free conduction electrons are repelled from the negative electrode towards the positive electrode. The free electrons do not and can not move instantly from one end to the other due to scattering and collisions with other electrons. Each electron carries charge, and moving charge induces a moving magnetic field. But since the electrons do not instantly bolt from one end to the other, rather than a microscopic movement of charge, there is a macroscopic movement of charge from one end to the other. This macroscopic movement of charge is near the speed of light and results in a macroscopic magnetic field that we can measure around the wire.

A charge has an electric field, and it is the movement of the E field that produces the B field. The macroscopic moving E field in the wire is very much like the "moving" B field of a Faraday disc; i.e. even though the electrons producing the field are moving, the resulting produced field appears to be static. That's why a DC current in a wire does not induce a current in an adjacent open circuit wire. The field is not changing, relative to the other stationary wire. Yep special relativity comes into play and is responsible for mag fileds around wires and also the electromagnet.

When an AC source is applied to the same wire, we have the same scenario where the B field is produced, but in this case the field is not only alternating directions, but it is changing, i.e. varying in magnitude. It is this varying field that can induce a current in an adjacent wire. Induction is another related topic for another discussion perhaps.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 05:32:28 PM
I have few interesting (crazy) questions:

1)  If you charge a van de graph generator to full extent, fix it on a truck and run the truck with 100km/hr speed will the generator sphere
     create a 'mega magnetic field'?  Because moving charges should create magnetic field.   If not 'Why'?
It does. But the strength of the field depends on the velocity as well as the number of moving charges. Even at 100 km/hr you are moving too slowly and even a good VDG, fully charged to the point of corona leakage, will contain a tiny number of excess charges. A Coulomb is a huge amount of charge to have on a static system but it is only one ampere for one second of electrical current.
 The numbers involved are so large, so small, and the electromagnetic force is so strong that our intuitions break down when we try to grasp the phenomenon fully. Some experience actually working with high voltages both "static" and "dynamic" helps one to understand, I think.
Quote

2)  Negative and positive charges are characteristically  opposite charges. So, when a moving negative charge produces magnetic field, a
     moving positive charge should produce anti-magnetic field.  But it just produces a magnetic field in opposite direction corresponding to
     the negative charge flow. 'Why'?   
You are once again asking the "why is there air" type question. Why do things fall down, instead of up?
Quote
3)  When moving charges (current) produces a magnetic field, reversely a moving magnetic field should produce an electric current. That is
     the principle used in an Electric generator.  But all generators are AC generators (alternators)  in which the current is first generated
     only in AC form  and later converted to DC by using split ring commutator.   A moving magnetic field cannot straightaway produce a
     DC.   'Why?'     
 
Can any genious answer?
Your assumptions are wrong. All generators are _not_ AC generators (alternators) and the fact that it is sometimes easier to produce AC than DC as a final output is a matter of geometry and construction. In fact "all generators" are DC generators, since the motion of the current, the field and the conductor are strictly related. The only reason you wind up with AC output from _some_ generators is because the things are cyclical, circular and are driven around and around, and efficiency requires use of both magnetic polarities in the circular machine. So you have one direction of motion but two directions of field, as the device rotates. But if you only use one polarity of field you can easily get DC only. I suggest you research the Faraday Dynamo, aka Homopolar Motor/Generator. Any time you have a conductor moving wrt magnetic field you have a DC current induced in the conductor, whose strength depends on the relative speed of motion (the component of the motion that is at 90 degrees to the field lines, the vector cross product) and the strength of the field. But the Faraday Dynamo shows that 1) a conductor moving in a magnetic field gets a DC current induced in it as long as the motion proceeds in one direction; and 2) the "field" doesn't rotate with the magnet, like a naive picture of "lines of force" might make you believe.

(And it's spelt "genius" ...  ;) )
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 05:37:22 PM
Wonderful evidence of an intelligent designer (creator) that perfectly formed what we are just beginning to understand, just how He designed things to work in the universe.  We have the opportunity to personally come to understand and know what that intelligent engineer (creator) of perfection knows, and what he can further reveal to us and teach us about His universe and ourselves?  A close relationship with the great engineer of the universe: (Jesus Christ) that engineered the functioning of the electron, the magnetic fields, and the entire atomic world and universe.  To gain more knowledge and understanding from the original source of all knowledge and wisdom and power.  The Alpha and Omega.  (The beginning and the end).

No, you have just emitted a classic "Argument from Ignorance". This takes this form: We don't know why this seemingly miraculous stuff exists, therefore it is because God willed it.

There is no evidence for the conclusion, contained in the premises. I could just as well tell you NO, not your God, but rather the Flying Spaghetti Monster made all of this, three days ago, and planted false memories of childhood in everybody, just for fun.

Your conclusion may be true, or it may be false ... but your premises and your mode of reasoning do not support either conclusion. You have left Science behind and are talking about _your_ Faith. Yours. And it's a faith that is failing, outmoded, obsolete, in this modern world.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Panul on October 06, 2014, 07:00:25 PM
No, you have just emitted a classic "Argument from Ignorance". This takes this form: We don't know why this seemingly miraculous stuff exists, therefore it is because God willed it.

There is no evidence for the conclusion, contained in the premises. I could just as well tell you NO, not your God, but rather the Flying Spaghetti Monster made all of this, three days ago, and planted false memories of childhood in everybody, just for fun.

Your conclusion may be true, or it may be false ... but your premises and your mode of reasoning do not support either conclusion. You have left Science behind and are talking about _your_ Faith. Yours. And it's a faith that is failing, outmoded, obsolete, in this modern world.


And who says logic is everything there is and that the only means to explain our reality. What is considered logic i could tell you is a lacking tool and maybe a mistaken one as well. most things in nature point to a creator but today's intellectual narcissism tries to explain everything logically and put god out of the equation. but usually this narcissism ends up fooling itself. what is the logical process you go through when you love your child? when you trust you wife with blind faith at home and dont send private detectives to search her to make an extreme example, and you trust to live your life with her. or when you trust any person, friends etc. (and if God is a personal entity why to think the relationship can be based on anything else than trust but instead in egoistical attempts to discover him with our brainpower?(like all dumb intellectual narcissists try to do and in fact just chase their tail)). whats the logic behind heroes that sacrifice themselves for the others? whats the logic behind a mother's love that can die to protect her child? whats the logic of believing a series of random events can create a spectacular universe, with physical laws, mathematically understandable, hospital to humans etc? and dont start with your national geographic documentaries stuff about the planet being hostile. you know very well what im talking about. about a gazillion of "ridiculous coincidences" that allowed and allow us to live and develop here as a species. how comes we are the only logical being with a soul? why didnt other species "evolve like us"? why people have inate inclination to spirituality and search for meaning of existance? how comes babies from the womb of their mother without developed brain gain experiences, understand things etc if there is no soul and there is only brain? how comes patients with brain death arent really dead and the body still does living functions if there isnt a soul that keeps the human alive? i dont know what you say about spaghetti monsters but the miracles happen in the name of Jesus Christ the God of my religion. this saint for example that is dead for 50 years and his skin is like that of a sleeping baby. imperishable holy relics is a common phenomenon in christianity amongst many other godgiven miracles. how can the laws of nature be overcome if not by their creator? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSaiQGVatZE
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 06, 2014, 07:14:57 PM
Now we do know why, or rather how, a boat makes a bow wave. You can't really move through the water without making one and the faster you go the bigger the wave. Charges make magnetic fields as they move relative to the observer. If the observer moves along with the charge... you don't see the magnetic field (because the field just describes how a thing will move and you are already moving that way) but you do see the electric field from the charge which isn't moving with respect to you. Now that duality of electric and magnetic fields, discriminated only by relative motion, is, to me, a grand mystery of the Universe. "Why" does that happen? Well, some people believe that that question can be answered in a meaningful way, and that's why they go out and build particle accelerators and learn complex mathematics. I just look around in awe, myself, and give thanks that things are the way they are. Maybe they could be different... but I doubt it. eta: The electron's charge cannot be removed from it, but an electron isn't "just" a packet of the Unit Negative charge. It has mass and spin angular momentum as well. What is really weird is that it does not appear to have a "size"... it is considered a point particle, or a probability cloud.




Now we are getting there.
English is not my first language so my questions can be a bit confusing.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Panul on October 06, 2014, 07:17:16 PM
moderator why you dont post my comment?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 06, 2014, 09:23:40 PM
(And it's spelt "genius" ...  ;) )

Agreed that you are a genius(not genious).

1) A charged sphere when set in motion will produce a magnetic field. You said 'yes'.

   Now think about a sphere fixed with  generator coils which can receive the magnetic flux suitably when magnetic  field is produced on
   the  sphere. Charge the sphere to the full with any type of charge, fix it to a speed motor or pulse motor which developes high speed
   with negligible input energy on 'no load'.

   When you start the motor, the charged sphere rotates and developes magnetic field which varies from zero to maximum.  If you switch
   off the motor and halt the sphere, magnetic field collapses from maximum to zero. In both cases  the generator coils fixed to the sphere
   generate electricity as per induction rules.    A huge magnetic field rising and collapsing, will generate considerable energy in the coils. At 
   the same time the rotating sphere will not experience any  slowing down force from the generator coils because these coils are fixed on
   the sphere and will be  rotating with sphere.

   Hence there will be no load on motor even if you apply electrical load on coils.

   So, you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing lenz's slowing down force. Your input  power to the motor will
   be only to overcome friction and any other losses which will be negligible.    Whereas  in  a normal generator when you apply electrical
   load,  lenz's forces corresponding to the load act on the prime mover  to conserve energy.

   Hence you have a overunity generator.


2) Reason for why  mass falls down instead of up is well known but reason for 'why moving positive charge doesnot produce anti-magnetic
    field' is not known.

    A moving positive charge not producing anti-magnetic field indicates that positive and negative charges are not  different in characters
    (don't know the right word) but different only in directions. Graphically a positve charge  emits 'lines of force' in outward direction and
    electron should receive lines of force inward direction.

    So, theoritically by bending these fields (or lines of force) by repulsion you can change the nature of charges.   I mean  you can make a
    negatively charged proton and positively charged electron!!

3) I don't believe that any generator can produce a DC as pure as produced by a battery. Generator can produce only a  pulsed DC.   I
    personally don't believe that a generator works on the principle of 'cutting of the flux'.     It works  on the principle of 'on & off' of the
    flux.    Anyway my knowledge in this field is limited and I leave it you.

PS : Now are you prepared to hammer a crowbar on my....

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 07, 2014, 06:34:30 AM
So we put a current through a wire. Electrons flow in one direction and their mag fields also have 'common' orientation around the wire depending on electron flow direction.  Thats odd.  This must mean that the electron has a positive and negative 'electrical' sides to them also. :o

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 07, 2014, 06:55:13 AM
snapped for long text, see the origin above


Before you make another question, I really, REALLY recommend you to see the site I mentioned somewhat earlier: amasci.com
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 07, 2014, 08:14:21 AM
So we put a current through a wire. Electrons flow in one direction and their mag fields also have 'common' orientation around the wire depending on electron flow direction.  Thats odd.  This must mean that the electron has a positive and negative 'electrical' sides to them also. :o

Mags

You are exactly right.   Nothing in this universe is 'mono'  everything is 'duo'.   Positive and negative sides exist at all points in an electric field just as north and south poles exist at all points in a magnetic field.     It is only the direction that matters.



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Turbo on October 07, 2014, 07:35:54 PM
Well, i got some news for yall.

You are all WRONG...  and especially that tinsel twat know it all.

Beginning to understand?? haha give me a break !! your not even close to beginning

Forget everything and i do mean everything you believe and start over.
And don't be fooled by know it all's they know nothing, they think they do but in reality they know nothing.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz could be a good start.
If you really want some answers, Absorb his works, especially the dielectric part and the fibrous part and the part about reflection and once you understand that you will have no more questions, and you can immediately pick out those few that really gained some understanding.
Also it makes things a lot more logical in stead of discussing and speculation combined with learned false assumptions.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on October 07, 2014, 08:29:08 PM
You're coming on a little strong don't you think Marco? Chill out man.  8)

I've not read much of Steinmetz, but yes it is good info.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 07, 2014, 08:31:56 PM
Snapped
You are all WRONG... 

I see nothing contradictory or wrong in our discussion comparing Steinmetz lectures.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 08, 2014, 02:19:05 AM
Well, i got some news for yall.

You are all WRONG...  and especially that tinsel twat know it all.
Go ahead, refute anything I've said, with checkable outside references, facts, or demonstrations of your own. Or continue to insult me with empty insults like the ignorant troll you are. Your choice.
Quote

Beginning to understand?? haha give me a break !! your not even close to beginning

Forget everything and i do mean everything you believe and start over.
And don't be fooled by know it all's they know nothing, they think they do but in reality they know nothing.
And yet, we "know it alls" (who don't actually pretend to know it "all" like you do) are able to use our "nothing" knowledge to engineer, build stuff, predict how it will work and see our predictions validated by experiment. Our knowledge allows us to observe, describe, control, and predict reality in a coherent, universally understood manner. Go ahead, forget Ohm's Law and Maxwell's Equations and start over. When you can use YOUR idea of magnetism to design and build a CRT that can display an image... and that is somehow different than the ones we "know it alls" have designed... be sure to let me know. But I'm not going to hold my breath, waiting for you to put your words into actions, because I know that you cannot.

Quote

Charles Proteus Steinmetz could be a good start.
If you really want some answers, Absorb his works, especially the dielectric part and the fibrous part and the part about reflection and once you understand that you will have no more questions, and you can immediately pick out those few that really gained some understanding.
Also it makes things a lot more logical in stead of discussing and speculation combined with learned false assumptions.

Go ahead, Turbo, educate us. Show us something that Steinmetz predicted that isn't completely covered by the standard modern theory of quantum electrodynamics. Be sure to include your YouTube video of the apparatus, and explain fully why the modern description of events isn't adequate or is wrong.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 08, 2014, 02:22:24 AM
Re the video "the kick".... what is the inductance of 25 cm of #20 solid copper wire? 

By saying "there is no coil" the presenter is implying that what is shown doesn't depend on the inductance of the wire. Is that true, or not? Is it at all possible that there is some capacitive coupling across the insulation of the wire, to his hand?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 08, 2014, 04:53:35 AM
Newton II:

Quote
So, when a moving negative charge produces magnetic field, a
     moving positive charge should produce anti-magnetic field.  But it just produces a magnetic field in opposite direction corresponding to
     the negative charge flow.

You are thinking things through.  To me it means you are showing your 'old' way of thinking and then going to the next step.  For starters you show what we can call "crazy logic" with nothing to back it up.  There is no such thing as an "anti-magnetic field," and I am pretty sure that you know that.  So why even say it?  It's akin to making a statement like this, "The North pole is very cold so the opposite South pole must be very hot."  Then you recover because you are fully aware of the right-hand rule.  The right-hand rule is REALITY.  I think it's important for people to resist the irrational urge to accept fake concepts and ideas that people put forward just because they 'sound cool.'  These are important principles in science and how to govern your thinking processes.  The formula for the magnetic field at a given point in space relative to a moving point charge is is attached to this posting.  It's important for people to realize that this formula applies to a point anywhere in ALL SPACE, the Universe.  It's absolutely real and verifiable and people need to understand this.  We have the ability to translate observed reality into a mathematical formula.  That's why we can design bridges and skyscrapers.

Quote
Now think about a sphere fixed with  generator coils which can receive the magnetic flux suitably when magnetic  field is produced on
   the  sphere. Charge the sphere to the full with any type of charge, fix it to a speed motor or pulse motor which developes high speed
   with negligible input energy on 'no load'.

   When you start the motor, the charged sphere rotates and developes magnetic field which varies from zero to maximum.  If you switch
   off the motor and halt the sphere, magnetic field collapses from maximum to zero. In both cases  the generator coils fixed to the sphere
   generate electricity as per induction rules.    A huge magnetic field rising and collapsing, will generate considerable energy in the coils. At 
   the same time the rotating sphere will not experience any  slowing down force from the generator coils because these coils are fixed on
   the sphere and will be  rotating with sphere.

   Hence there will be no load on motor even if you apply electrical load on coils.

   So, you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing lenz's slowing down force.

Not a chance in the world will you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing Lenz drag. 

The first thing that you have to do if you want to explore this further is make a physical diagram of what you are talking about and an equivalent schematic diagram.  I read your description and it is ambiguous and lacking in sufficient detail.  That's a classic issue on the forums, talking about a circuit with no schematic, no discussing of the timing of the system, no discussing of the input and output, etc.  It simply doesn't work like that in real life.  If you are up to the challenge then great, or we can just forget about it.  It's your choice.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 08, 2014, 10:29:14 AM
Dear Milehigh sir,

I appreciate your patience in replying to ignorant questions of ignorant people like me.

An ignorant person may think that head is full of ear wax which comes out of hoels in ears or it is full of mucus which comes out of holes in the nose (nostrils) just like water comes out of a pipe connected to a overhead tank.    There is nothing wrong in the logic.  But learned people like you should tell them that there is brain inside the head and these things come out of some other place.

I feel blessed if you consider me as your 'old' student, take pain in answering my ignorant questions and help me in getting rid of my ignorance.

1) When dirac spoke about 'anti matter' other scientists suggested psychiatric treatment for him. But later his theory  was proved
    experimentally.     When something called as 'anti matter' exists, what is wrong in thinking that corresponding 'anti-field' also exists? 
 
2) Lenz's drag (as mechanical force) comes into picture only when there is physical relative motion between coil and magnetic field. Since
    both coil and magnetic field are rotating along with sphere with no relative motion between them, there is no chance of lenz's drag (as
    mechanical force) in that scheme.   

3) The equation shown in the image - does it refer to a charge moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) or it applies to a
    charge moving under the influence of a mechanical force also?   Please confirm.
 
    Sun is a huge positively charged sphere rotating on its own axis and completes one rotation in 26 days. Considering  the size of the sun,
    the velocity developed at its outer surface should be very high.    Does  sun  develope a huge  magnetic field  around it due to this
    motion or high temperature of sun prevents it from producing magnetic field?

4) I don't think that a moving charge under the influence of mechanical force developes a magnetic field at all. A rotating charged sphere
    developes kinetic energy due to its mass and not magnetic field.   Only a charge moving under the influence of electric potential
    developes a magnetic field.    Can you please clarify?

5) I don't see anything great in humans building bridges and skyscrapers becuase even birds and insects are capable of  building
    nests/hives to an engineering class just by intuition.  Intelligence in humans is also a form of intuition and they have to thank God for
    giving them that intuition.


             
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Turbo on October 08, 2014, 12:20:40 PM
And yet, we "know it alls" (who don't actually pretend to know it "all" like you do) are able to use our "nothing" knowledge to engineer, build stuff, predict how it will work and see our predictions validated by experiment. Our knowledge allows us to observe, describe, control, and predict reality in a coherent, universally understood manner.


You are making a classical error in understanding here and for once i will point you to your error in understanding which is as follows:

To know how to use something is not necessarily the same as knowing how something works.

You can know how to drive a car without knowing how it actually works, as many do and luckily we got many great mechanics and engineers around that do know how a car works..

In dielectricity this is unfortunatly not so.

Yes you can predict how something will work and if you do the calculations correctly it will do that, but it is not the same as knowing what it actually does or how it produces your 'predicted' results there is a distinct difference and when you go into the territory outside of your predictions, your just speculating about what you think or what seems to be the best match according to your specific knowledge.

So in essence you draw on what you have learned and assume it to be correct, but you know verry well as i do that most people havent got a clue when it comes to the underlying phenomena.

That said i like to adress another point RE: The Kick wire
It is a bit sad to see you draw your set of conclusions on that one thing that is shown to you.
Do you really think that was the only experiment performed?
It was not and i think it's naieve to think that.
There were done many, many experiments including those related to 'bodily capacitance'
It is of utmost importance not to imediatly try to explain away something you observe by comparing it to your personal knowledge base simply because if your knowledge base is faulty, so will be your explenation.

In stead try to explain it from what is called the 'know nothing' state and you will receive the correct questions in stead of the faulty answers.

Go ahead, forget Ohm's Law and Maxwell's Equations and start over. When you can use YOUR idea of magnetism to design and build a CRT that can display an image... and that is somehow different than the ones we "know it alls" have designed... be sure to let me know. But I'm not going to hold my breath, waiting for you to put your words into actions, because I know that you cannot.

Go ahead, Turbo, educate us. Show us something that Steinmetz predicted that isn't completely covered by the standard modern theory of quantum electrodynamics. Be sure to include your YouTube video of the apparatus, and explain fully why the modern description of events isn't adequate or is wrong.

Again, I'd say there is a immerse difference between trying to explain something away by modern assumptions and what is really going on it is the most logical step to take the route that fits best but this does NOT mean it is therefore correct error, error.
It is wrong simply because what is really going on does not even come close to what is assumed that is going on how hard can it be to understand the fact that most people are not actually sure about what is going on and there is a rather large chance the applied theory could be wrong, or in the best, incorrect.
Moreover, many 'old' and forgotten experiments show and confirm this but no, old stuff can never be as advanced and correct as the latest ideas, right?
So as a result i would say that the old is even so more correct then the new, which actually shows the direction as to where we are heading.
And i am a pointer, not an educator i remind and point you to your errors and to these facts that once you leave the calculated part you are just guessing and bringing up fancy names doesn't help because they still end with 'theory' which is based on well you know what it means.
Comparing Steinmetz to modern quantum electrodynamics is like comparing a cow to a chicken i am not sure how you would do that.
Also i give you reference to people whom studied these areas of interest with a different view, a view that will force you to re think what you actually know thus by comparing what you know to what they left in their writings your view will be expanded, often in another direction and as a result, you will start to see different pictures, pictures you had not seen before.

I really do not know what to say in stead of the above and i am not interested in this or that discussions i only want the people to know that there are other sources with different probably more logical material available.
The funny thing is that if you go back in history you will find that people were actually closer to the beginning in the beginning but drifted away in the wrong direction so moving actually away from beginning to understand and well ending where we are at today which is basicly knowing how to make it work without knowing how it works its a visual circle actually an endless loop as we call it and unless we go back to fix our errors the questions remain the same. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on October 08, 2014, 12:50:13 PM



 If you could explain what "dielectricity" actually is it would be a great help
  'cause I can't start understanding 'til I can master that one word.
    Many thanks,in anticipation,
                           John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Turbo on October 08, 2014, 02:27:59 PM
Well John when it comes to the magnetic field we all seem to understand it has a fibrous structure.

Most have seen the magnet + iron fillings or even ferro fluids mark the shape of the field lines.
Mose have heard the Barkhausen snapping noise,
and most know about magnetic saturation. 

But when it comes to the dielectric part they all of a sudden start to speak in terms of 'charge' or 'potential difference'
How many know the actual structure of the dielectric field?
Look at a corona discharge or at a spark or lightning or the crackling noise when you wave your hand over a charged crt.
The dielectric field is also fibrous but it does not paint the same picture.
Magnetic field lines are closed whereas dielectric field lines are open.
What does this say about dielectric saturation?
How many people here work with dielectric fields in stead of endlessly waving coils past magnets, magnets past coils?

You know about the current carrying wire giving rise to a magnetic field, you know what happens to the magnetic field between two current carrying wires running in opposite direction.
But what do you know about the dielectric field that exists between these two wires?
Or between the dielectric (fibrous) field lines between the plates of a vacuum tube?

No then all of a sudden we start to mumble about charges and moving electrons ?  ::)

So if they are both fibrous in nature then why does it have to be particles and charge in one and field lines in the other?
How about we swap them?
Magnetic particles and electron lines?
The magnetic cloud around a (hot) permanent magnet?

Why not just use lines of force for the both of them, closed magnetic lines, open dielectric lines, which have a certain influence on each other.
That's right, drop the electrons, from now it's only moving field lines open and closed forming interference patterns.
What can we do with that?

What happens with a hot piece of iron or magnet? loses strength? holds less field lines? Curie point?
We all know about that right.
The electron cloud around the hot cathode, what does it mean in terms of field lines? we dropped the electron remember.
More field lines? or less what can be said about the existence of a dielectric 'Curie' point?
Who knows ?
So what is assumed to be boiled off electrons, escaped into the electron cloud, less binding force surface electrons etc. may very well be something entirely different but at the same time something remarkably common when compared to it's magnetic lines of force brother, but just having a different pattern.
The vacuum cathode is a bad example just the dielectric field lines between two opposed charged insulated conductors will do.
Because you need  two. why? well open lines remember that means FROM - TO and not AROUND as in closed magnetic lines and that .......could actually mean something.

But they said " it doesn't do anything so let's throw it away".
Little could they know.
And now we are left only with the magnetic part, waving coils past magnets, magnets past coils..

And you are asking me to explain what it actually is whilst i am thinking, if Magnetic is field lines, if Dielectric is field lines, then what about Gravity? Fibrous structure or not? i mean we already got two that are.

I hope that will help you somehow.

There are some good books and videos around if your willing to look for it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 08, 2014, 02:43:47 PM
Would you mind compiling a short list.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 08, 2014, 04:17:17 PM
Snapped
             
These kind of dilemmas require experiments. Since our knowledge does not answer it and even our senses can dupe us: "When something called as 'anti matter' exists". Whatever whoever answers these questions without experiments, it will be only non-verifiable SUGGESTIONS.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 08, 2014, 04:36:02 PM


 If you could explain what "dielectricity" actually is it would be a great help
  'cause I can't start understanding 'til I can master that one word.
    Many thanks,in anticipation,
                           John.
See/visit my earlier suggestion: amasci.com
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 08, 2014, 04:38:39 PM
Turbo: "Comparing Steinmetz to modern quantum electrodynamics is like comparing a cow to a chicken i am not sure how you would do that."
Examples?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 08, 2014, 04:43:23 PM
Quote
"Well John when it comes to the magnetic field we all seem to understand it has a fibrous structure.

Most have seen the magnet + iron fillings or even ferro fluids mark the shape of the field lines."

Sure, and a topographic map shows that the Earth is made up of horizontal layers precisely 10 meters apart.

Turbo, you are pushing the same line of mistaken BS that your puppetmaster pushes.

There is NO "FIBROUS STRUCTURE" to the magnetic or electric field. "Field lines" are precisely defined mathematical entities that are useful for computation but there is no corresponding physical structure that is a "fiber" of a magnetic or electric field.
Iron filings and ferrofluids do not "mark the shape of field lines", they assume least-energy configurations by orienting the long axes of the particles and clumps of particles along the local gradient of the field. People who do not understand the mathematics see these patterns and assume they are seeing some kind of map of "field lines". Sure, and if you pour water into a depression in the ground, the top surface of the water will mark the level of one of the horizontal slices of the planet that a topo map shows you.

And before you make your assumptions about who has done what with what fields, perhaps you should do your homework. Where are YOUR demonstrations of electric field phenomena? Where are YOUR static machines, your "megavolt Tesla coils", your demonstrations and references that back up your silly claims? You are keeping them very well hidden.

Do you see any magnets, coils, etc that are responsible for what is happening here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 08, 2014, 08:15:21 PM
Fibrous structures is nonsense.  It's just one of many myths and misconceptions that are created on the forums.  How many forum regulars believe that the high-voltage spike from a coil discharging into a high-impedance load "taps into the aether and gets free energy from the aether/vacuum?"  How many believe that if you "chop" a coil with a transistor by shorting it out driven by a high-frequency square wave the same alleged phenomenon happens?

I am willing to bet you that many people believe this.  Many times I have challenged people that believe this to conduct an experiment and show data that confirms their beliefs.  I have never had someone respond to the challenge.  Instead all that I have heard is stony silence.

These are examples of people wanting to believe and therefore "by my wanting to believe in something that must make it true."  It's simply completely wrong.

Then Turbo wants to "reinvent" what sounds like an electric field and calls it a "dielectric field."

Then he and many others pose "thought provoking questions" but never attempt to provide the answers.

Another classic line, "We don't know everything."  Or, "Laws are just ideas proposed by men."  Or, "Laws are made to be broken."

These things just don't work like this in real life.  Instead of rhetorical navel-gazing questions, prove something if you have conviction about a far-fetched idea.  Prove it!  Stop just talking trash with no substance.

We all know where the trash talk can end.  Look at Naima Feagin's trash talk.  It's absolutely grotesque and she is laughing all the way to the bank.

Look at the Akula nonsense.  People were convinced that it was real and worked before they even ordered their PCBs.  It was just another stupid circuit that pulsed coils and did NOTHING.  What happened to the people that got the PCBs and built the circuit?  Nothing.

Akula is just a Russian mental masturbator.  He makes a clip and watches people jump through hoops and watches the video clips that they make and reads the threads that they make.  It gives him a feeling of power.  That's all it is, a nutcase making people jump through hoops for his own perverse thrills.

And rabid believers will actually say in all seriousness that, "Akula was bought out."

Webby1:  Where is Wayne and his ridiculous nonsensical idiocy?  I suppose the answer is nowhere.  He will disappear just like Richard from Magnacoaster.  Both of them sounded like complete idiots when they talked about their stuff.  Yet people wanted to believe.  They are just another version of Akula but instead of running for the Kleenex they ran to the bank.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Turbo on October 08, 2014, 08:31:40 PM
Exactly.

First the man denies it's existence, and then posts a picture showing it's existence.
And off course, as always, the were is your part.

I said what i wanted to say and i will leave it there since i am convinced it is enough to communicate the message.
 
I know it's hard to grasp the idea of field lines between all conducting objects in the universe but this is exactly what makes it so interesting because it would imply that every mobile phone or tablet or laptop or in fact any conducting object is already connected to one another by nature... and always has.
On another note this opens up more possibilities because you can work from open circuit to open circuit which is impossible where closed circuits are used, and this is also the area that has got room for 'external input' and would imply that a change of potential on one conducting object has to influence all other conductive objects in the universe but i better not go there it just too much.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 08, 2014, 08:45:36 PM
Newton II:

Quote
I appreciate your patience in replying to ignorant questions of ignorant people like me.

An ignorant person may think that head is full of ear wax which comes out of hoels in ears or it is full of mucus which comes out of holes in the nose (nostrils) just like water comes out of a pipe connected to a overhead tank.    There is nothing wrong in the logic.  But learned people like you should tell them that there is brain inside the head and these things come out of some other place.

You don't have to put on a show and play the wounded dove.  Nor do you have to play act with the fake patronizing attitude and the fake self-depreciating comments.

Do you want me to spend an extra 1/2 hour so that my response is just oh so perfectly politically correct for your sensitive ears?  Do I need to choose every word carefully so that you are not "wounded" by my statements?

How about we just get real and make our points without any fake drama?

Quote
1) When dirac spoke about 'anti matter' other scientists suggested psychiatric treatment for him. But later his theory  was proved
    experimentally.     When something called as 'anti matter' exists, what is wrong in thinking that corresponding 'anti-field' also exists?

I hate these illogical connections that people make, and I have observed you do it many times.  "They said the Titanic would not sink but it did sink.  Therefore electric discharges could be plasma leaking in from an alternate universe."  That's nonsense and you should try to avoid that false logic.

Quote
Lenz's drag (as mechanical force) comes into picture only when there is physical relative motion between coil and magnetic field. Since
    both coil and magnetic field are rotating along with sphere with no relative motion between them, there is no chance of lenz's drag (as
    mechanical force) in that scheme. 

The clip and formula is about a moving point charge.  You are talking about a stationary rotating sphere of charge.  Do you see a problem there?

Quote
Sun is a huge positively charged sphere rotating on its own axis and completes one rotation in 26 days. Considering  the size of the sun,
    the velocity developed at its outer surface should be very high.    Does  sun  develope a huge  magnetic field  around it due to this
    motion or high temperature of sun prevents it from producing magnetic field?

The thermo-nuclear-reactor sun has nothing to do with what we are talking about whatsoever.  They said the Titanic would not sink, you know.

Quote
I don't see anything great in humans building bridges and skyscrapers becuase even birds and insects are capable of  building
    nests/hives to an engineering class just by intuition.  Intelligence in humans is also a form of intuition and they have to thank God for
    giving them that intuition.

That's another nonsensical point that does not advance your argument at all because it is irrelevant to the discussion.

You supplied no diagram and no equivalent circuit and made no attempt to truly describe the operation of your proposed mechanism.  And to repeat, your proposed system has nothing to do with a moving point charge, and a moving point charge is supposedly the root from which your argument is made.

The issue with you is the propensity to make connections between ideas when in fact the connections are not there.

If you want to completely ignore the discussion about a moving point charge, and discuss how a rotating sphere of charge with some kind of coil configuration can give you a generator with no Lenz drag then fine.  Let's completely forget about a moving point charge and start from scratch.  If you are willing to provide the physical and schematic diagrams and make a timing diagram that shows how the electric circuit allegedly works, then fine.  But if you can only offer pie-in-the-sky prose that describes something from your imagination, then forget it, I will not be interested.

I can sum it up with three words, "please be real."

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 09, 2014, 01:04:00 AM
Webby:

You won't comment on that fool because he is a fraud.  You want another sign that he is a fraud?  Take a look at the "job openings" slide that I just captured today and posted here.  I am willing to bet you that the "job openings" are the same now as they were two years ago.  What does that say?

It says that he is a fake company and the job openings are a pretense to make it appear that he is a real company to lure in gullible investors.  He is not hiring anybody, the slide on his website is a LIE.

Sorry for going off-topic but it at least does fall under the "myths and misconceptions" umbrella.

Quote
a point charge, these things are taught as if they actually exist

Did you ever take a physics class where you do the derivation showing that a sphere of mass can be modeled as a single point of the same mass?  These are intellectual "leaps" that help you to understand the real world.  They do not teach you in school that field lines are real lines, real physical things.  I don't know where you are getting that from.

Your argument is similar to the case when you tell someone that an inductor is actually a wire of zero resistance, and you can get a voltage across that zero-ohm wire.  Because they can't understand the concept of inductance their eyes glaze over and they accuse you of talking nonsense disconnected from the "real world" of inductors with resistive wire.

Anyway, naturally this thread only reaches a few eyeballs.  Some time within the next 24 hours you will see an uninformed person make a posting that includes a myth or misconception about magnets or magnetism.  It may even be someone that read this entire thread.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on October 09, 2014, 05:58:43 AM
  I first figured out how current through a static magnetic field forced the current carrying metal to move by reading a very old book published around 1901 dealing with electromagnetism.  It was a practical guide for electric motor technicians and engineers.  Below is a picture I drew up fast to duplicate the much better diagram from the book.  The magnetic field is like water blowing across the ocean surface.  In the diagram this is from left to right.   The conductor current is flowing into the page.   (could be out long time since I did any right-hand left hand stuff)   A circular flow of magnetic current is created as indicated by the arrow around the conductor surface.   The rotating current increases the total magnetic pressure on top of the conductor whereas it decreases the magnetic pressure below the conductor.  Therefore the conductor moves from the top of the page to the bottom.  Something like an airplane wing or a sail.  The wind because of it's viscosity has to travel faster around the bulge in the wing or sail.  This decreases the pressure.   The lower side of the wing or the more or less flat side of the sail allows the wind to flow unimpeded and at a velocity less than the air traveling the bulge.  The split stream converges at the trailing edge of the wing or sail at the same velocity as the bulk flow of air relavent to the craft.  Anyway the pressure is greater under the wing than it is on top and this lifts the craft up as the ambient pressure continually tries to fill the partial vacuum created by the fast moving air. 
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: CANGAS on October 09, 2014, 06:49:13 AM
Sure, and a topographic map shows that the Earth is made up of horizontal layers precisely 10 meters apart.

Turbo, you are pushing the same line of mistaken BS that your puppetmaster pushes.

There is NO "FIBROUS STRUCTURE" to the magnetic or electric field. "Field lines" are precisely defined mathematical entities that are useful for computation but there is no corresponding physical structure that is a "fiber" of a magnetic or electric field.
Iron filings and ferrofluids do not "mark the shape of field lines", they assume least-energy configurations by orienting the long axes of the particles and clumps of particles along the local gradient of the field. People who do not understand the mathematics see these patterns and assume they are seeing some kind of map of "field lines". Sure, and if you pour water into a depression in the ground, the top surface of the water will mark the level of one of the horizontal slices of the planet that a topo map shows you.

And before you make your assumptions about who has done what with what fields, perhaps you should do your homework. Where are YOUR demonstrations of electric field phenomena? Where are YOUR static machines, your "megavolt Tesla coils", your demonstrations and references that back up your silly claims? You are keeping them very well hidden.

Do you see any magnets, coils, etc that are responsible for what is happening here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)


Well, it's like this.

When we construct a model of a phenomenon, we may, or, may not, happen to hit upon  the exactly right visualization that will coincide with what we see when we look with clairvoyant vision upon that phenomenon and see it in its intrinsic real reality exactly like God sees it.

So, if the Faraday model of field lines proves to work out to give the theorists and the engineers and you and me and all the rest of us good and useful answers, then we, still in our non-clairvoyant bewildered mere human condition, have no good basis to say that the field line model is not real. It may be real or it may be fantasy, but if it works, then you don't have any case for claiming that it is not real.

And likewise, I do not have a conclusive case for saying that it is real because I am just so sure that that is how God sees it.

You cannot prove one way or the other just like I cannot prove one way or the other.

Perhaps you disagree.....


G'day mate
CANGAS 86
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 09, 2014, 07:27:28 AM

I can sum it up with three words, "please be real."

MileHigh


To be very clear, I have got a simple question :

When you pass a DC through a conductor, electrons flow or move like 'Newton balls' and a magnetic field is created around the conductor conforming to right hand thumb rule.   

Instead of passing a DC through the conductor, fully charge the conductor with electrons and move the conductor itself physically by applying mechanical force,  will the conductor create a magnetic field around it?   YES or NO.

If you say 'YES', it will have its own implications.  If you say 'NO',  then you will be conforming that electric charges moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) only will produce magnetic fields. 

If you are not interested, please don't respond. 


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on October 09, 2014, 08:42:52 AM
  To get a permanent magnet motor to run it is very simple.  Polarize a permanent magnet so that it creates a magnetic field that duplicates the magnetic field of a copper wire conducting dc current.   If you can youve got a winner.   Replace conductor in below picture with said dynamic permanent magnetic thing and watch her spin for 400 years, ::)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 09, 2014, 09:31:13 AM

To be very clear, I have got a simple question :

When you pass a DC through a conductor, electrons flow or move like 'Newton balls' and a magnetic field is created around the conductor conforming to right hand thumb rule.   

Instead of passing a DC through the conductor, fully charge the conductor with electrons and move the conductor itself physically by applying mechanical force,  will the conductor create a magnetic field around it?   YES or NO.

If you say 'YES', it will have its own implications.  If you say 'NO',  then you will be conforming that electric charges moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) only will produce magnetic fields. 

If you are not interested, please don't respond.

You already have my answer to this.
http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg419371/#msg419371

And here's a tiny bit more complicated answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential

So let's see what MH has to say about it.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 09, 2014, 09:40:15 AM
Exactly.

First the man denies it's existence, and then posts a picture showing it's existence.
And off course, as always, the were is your part.

I said what i wanted to say and i will leave it there since i am convinced it is enough to communicate the message.
 
I know it's hard to grasp the idea of field lines between all conducting objects in the universe but this is exactly what makes it so interesting because it would imply that every mobile phone or tablet or laptop or in fact any conducting object is already connected to one another by nature... and always has.
On another note this opens up more possibilities because you can work from open circuit to open circuit which is impossible where closed circuits are used, and this is also the area that has got room for 'external input' and would imply that a change of potential on one conducting object has to influence all other conductive objects in the universe but i better not go there it just too much.
(sic)

You are like the dog who looks at the master's finger, instead of where it's pointing, when the finger is pointing to something of much greater interest elsewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py-0dVJ4K_s
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 09, 2014, 03:26:01 PM
.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 09, 2014, 05:50:18 PM
Magnetic field lines would be quite useful element in calculations. Do you know guys a formula which includes them? Especially supported by scientists who have them in their suggestions.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 09, 2014, 06:44:03 PM
  To get a permanent magnet motor to run it is very simple.  Polarize a permanent magnet so that it creates a magnetic field that duplicates the magnetic field of a copper wire conducting dc current.   If you can youve got a winner.   Replace conductor in below picture with said dynamic permanent magnetic thing and watch her spin for 400 years, ::)


Looks very simple.  Can it be like this? (see the attachment)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 12:46:11 AM
  I first figured out how current through a static magnetic field forced the current carrying metal to move by reading a very old book published around 1901 dealing with electromagnetism.  It was a practical guide for electric motor technicians and engineers.  Below is a picture I drew up fast to duplicate the much better diagram from the book.  The magnetic field is like water blowing across the ocean surface.  In the diagram this is from left to right.   The conductor current is flowing into the page.   (could be out long time since I did any right-hand left hand stuff)   A circular flow of magnetic current is created as indicated by the arrow around the conductor surface.   The rotating current increases the total magnetic pressure on top of the conductor whereas it decreases the magnetic pressure below the conductor.  Therefore the conductor moves from the top of the page to the bottom.  Something like an airplane wing or a sail.  The wind because of it's viscosity has to travel faster around the bulge in the wing or sail.  This decreases the pressure.   The lower side of the wing or the more or less flat side of the sail allows the wind to flow unimpeded and at a velocity less than the air traveling the bulge.  The split stream converges at the trailing edge of the wing or sail at the same velocity as the bulk flow of air relavent to the craft.  Anyway the pressure is greater under the wing than it is on top and this lifts the craft up as the ambient pressure continually tries to fill the partial vacuum created by the fast moving air. 
 

Sparks:

Here is a clip that shows the force between two wires carrying electric current. One wire is modeled as the source of the external magnetic field and the other wire is modeled as the wire that experiences the force, so it is identical to your example.  The actual example starts in the middle of the clip.  I also attached the formula of as a screen capture.

The fundamental concept that it's all based on is that the current vector (magnitude and direction) of the wire that experiences a force interacts with the magnetic field vector (magnitude and direction) of the external magnetic field.   The force on the wire is proportional to the cross product of the current vector and the external magnetic field vector.

This is just one step above mastering magnets and magnetic fields.  What are vectors?  What's a dot product?  What's a cross product?  How does this relate to the right-hand rule?  If you are building motors and you are serious you have to master these concepts.

The explanation starts in the middle of the clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfDQFtY1n8E&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 12:59:18 AM

Well, it's like this.

When we construct a model of a phenomenon, we may, or, may not, happen to hit upon  the exactly right visualization that will coincide with what we see when we look with clairvoyant vision upon that phenomenon and see it in its intrinsic real reality exactly like God sees it.

So, if the Faraday model of field lines proves to work out to give the theorists and the engineers and you and me and all the rest of us good and useful answers, then we, still in our non-clairvoyant bewildered mere human condition, have no good basis to say that the field line model is not real. It may be real or it may be fantasy, but if it works, then you don't have any case for claiming that it is not real.

And likewise, I do not have a conclusive case for saying that it is real because I am just so sure that that is how God sees it.

You cannot prove one way or the other just like I cannot prove one way or the other.

Perhaps you disagree.....


G'day mate
CANGAS 86

Cangas:

I disagree strongly.  Hopefully this new example will swat this nonsensical belief in literal "lines" or "threads" of magnetic field.  There are NO LINES.  The lines are there ONLY to help you visualize the strength and direction of the magnetic field, and that's all.

Look at the attached diagram.  Do you think that there are real "lines" in the air?  What is your common sense telling you?  Now apply that common sense to magnetic fields.

Quote
You cannot prove one way or the other just like I cannot prove one way or the other.

You can't prove that there aren't pink elephants floating over the sky in the center of Greenland either, but you can use your common sense and not let yourself get led down a garden path because you see lines used as a visual aid in diagrams.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 01:19:30 AM

To be very clear, I have got a simple question :

When you pass a DC through a conductor, electrons flow or move like 'Newton balls' and a magnetic field is created around the conductor conforming to right hand thumb rule.   

Instead of passing a DC through the conductor, fully charge the conductor with electrons and move the conductor itself physically by applying mechanical force,  will the conductor create a magnetic field around it?   YES or NO.

If you say 'YES', it will have its own implications.  If you say 'NO',  then you will be conforming that electric charges moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) only will produce magnetic fields. 

If you are not interested, please don't respond.

Newton II:

When you pass DC current through a conductor there is no "Newton balls" phenomenon taking place.  To me "Newton balls" implies electrons enter one end of a conductor and "push" on adjacent electrons to form a chain reaction where electrons at the opposite end of the conductor get "pushed out."  That is not happening.

We are going to assume a real-world conductor with a very low resistance.  There will be a very low level electric field in this conductor such that there is a very low voltage drop from one end of the conductor to the other.  This low level electric field is what makes the electrons move.  Each individual electron is influenced by the electric field and thus they all move in the same direction at the same time.

Quote
Instead of passing a DC through the conductor, fully charge the conductor with electrons and move the conductor itself physically by applying mechanical force,  will the conductor create a magnetic field around it?   YES or NO.

NO because you can't "charge" the conductor because you are implying this conductor forms part of a circuit.  There is no net charge on a conductor that forms part of an electrical circuit.

What perhaps you are actually thinking is if you had an isolated conductor and you charged it up with static electricity then would it create a magnetic field if you then moved it by applying mechanical force to it.  In this situation it's just a variation on a moving point charge.  Instead of a moving point charge you are talking about a moving long thin cylinder of charge. That would create a magnetic field if you moved it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 10, 2014, 02:56:22 AM
  I first figured out how current through a static magnetic field forced the current carrying metal to move by reading a very old book published around 1901 dealing with electromagnetism.  It was a practical guide for electric motor technicians and engineers.  Below is a picture I drew up fast to duplicate the much better diagram from the book.  The magnetic field is like water blowing across the ocean surface.  In the diagram this is from left to right.   The conductor current is flowing into the page.   (could be out long time since I did any right-hand left hand stuff)   A circular flow of magnetic current is created as indicated by the arrow around the conductor surface.   The rotating current increases the total magnetic pressure on top of the conductor whereas it decreases the magnetic pressure below the conductor.  Therefore the conductor moves from the top of the page to the bottom.  Something like an airplane wing or a sail.  The wind because of it's viscosity has to travel faster around the bulge in the wing or sail.  This decreases the pressure.   The lower side of the wing or the more or less flat side of the sail allows the wind to flow unimpeded and at a velocity less than the air traveling the bulge.  The split stream converges at the trailing edge of the wing or sail at the same velocity as the bulk flow of air relavent to the craft.  Anyway the pressure is greater under the wing than it is on top and this lifts the craft up as the ambient pressure continually tries to fill the partial vacuum created by the fast moving air. 
 

Hey Sparks

I have not played with iron wire coils yet, but supposedly they do produce a field with current. Its interesting what you are saying.

Say we run dc through a straight iron wire and we build a field around the wire, just like copper wire(I think), and if when we remove that current, is it possible that the iron wire could maintain at least some of the field in the orientation it was when current was flowing. Sort of like how a soft iron nail can retain a magnetized state N and S from end to end, is it possible for the iron wire to maintain a circular field around the wire after the current is removed.  Say we hit the wire with a momentary high discharge that creates an initially large field around the wire, would there possibly be any remanence of that field after the discharge ceases? A circular field with no true N or S ends to it. Dunno. But interesting thought. ;)

Mags

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 03:01:31 AM
MH said,
Quote
"When you pass DC current through a conductor there is no "Newton balls" phenomenon taking place.  To me "Newton balls" implies electrons enter one end of a conductor and "push" on adjacent electrons to form a chain reaction where electrons at the opposite end of the conductor get "pushed out."  That is not happening."

Oh? What if the end of that wire is connected to the cathode of an electron gun in a CRT? Where do the electrons in the beam come from, if not from out of the wire supplying the cathode?  Or have you gone over to the TA side, where you don't believe that there is a beam of electrons, focussed and directed by changing magnetic fields, in a CRT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 10, 2014, 03:13:35 AM
Hey Sparks

I have not played with iron wire coils yet, but supposedly they do produce a field with current. Its interesting what you are saying.

Say we run dc through a straight iron wire and we build a field around the wire, just like copper wire(I think), and if when we remove that current, is it possible that the iron wire could maintain at least some of the field in the orientation it was when current was flowing. Sort of like how a soft iron nail can retain a magnetized state N and S from end to end, is it possible for the iron wire to maintain a circular field around the wire after the current is removed.  Say we hit the wire with a momentary high discharge that creates an initially large field around the wire, would there possibly be any remanence of that field after the discharge ceases? A circular field with no true N or S ends to it. Dunno. But interesting thought. ;)

Mags

Mags

A possible secondary experiment would be to apply enough current to heat the iron wire pretty good, then freeze the wire with freeze spray while removing the current.  ;D

off that topic, I had an idea to wind a copper wire around a plastic toroid, 4in dia, 1/2in thick, 1/2in deep.  1 layer. Then make a rotor with all magnets N pointing out. just used 2 mags in the test.  It was a slap together thing, a bit off balance in every way, but just tried.  When I applied current to the coil, sometimes the rotor turned CW, sometimes CCW.  The idea was to have the mags close to the inside part of the coil and have the N poles of the mags ride the field spin around those inner windings.  As in a DC motor without pole switching. I chose to use a non magnetic core so as not to have it absorb the field away from the mags.  But a core may help, havnt gotten there yet. Busy with life. Try to get to some experiments here n there. ;) Just throwing it out there. ;) ;D


Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 03:18:55 AM
MH said,
Quote
NO because you can't "charge" the conductor because you are implying this conductor forms part of a circuit.  There is no net charge on a conductor that forms part of an electrical circuit.

Charge up a capacitor with DC. The plates of the capacitor and the conductors connected to them have a net charge, equal and opposite since charge is a conserved quantity. Install the capacitor in an AC oscillating circuit and the plates and conductors attached to them will have net charges, alternating polarity as the capacitor charges and discharges and recharges in the opposite polarity. Right?

Current flow in a conductor is basically a process of equalizing charge pressure between more positive and more negative unbalanced regions. Only when current stops flowing is charge equalized; conversely, no current flows unless there is a charge imbalance between the ends of the wire. So if you look at a wire carrying current with a very sensitive instrument you will see a voltage drop along the wire, because the wire has a finite resistance. This means that there is a charge imbalance between the ends of the wire, that exists and that can be measured as long as current is flowing in the wire.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 10, 2014, 03:25:08 AM
MH said,
Oh? What if the end of that wire is connected to the cathode of an electron gun in a CRT? Where do the electrons in the beam come from, if not from out of the wire supplying the cathode?  Or have you gone over to the TA side, where you don't believe that there is a beam of electrons, focussed and directed by changing magnetic fields, in a CRT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray)

Also if we look at a wire run  from one place to another over a great distance, when we apply a current to one end of the wire, there is a latency as to when the other end of that wire produces output vs 'when' the input was introduced.  Say ground for return.  So it can be just like Newtons cradle and not all electrons moving in the wire at the same time, but a crowding at the input of electrons that eventually expands reaches the other end over time, depending on polarity. the input could be depleting electrons from the input end of the wire creating a lack of electrons at the input and yada yada yada. ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 10, 2014, 03:37:35 AM
MileHigh, I believe, your implication(s) on electrons behavior in DC (Direct Current) in solid conductor are scientifically supported. Can you show us a link or any reference on that matter?

Edit:

Oops! MH, you are supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier)

Then we have a dilemma.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 04:27:51 AM
MH said,
Oh? What if the end of that wire is connected to the cathode of an electron gun in a CRT? Where do the electrons in the beam come from, if not from out of the wire supplying the cathode?  Or have you gone over to the TA side, where you don't believe that there is a beam of electrons, focussed and directed by changing magnetic fields, in a CRT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray)

TK:

A CRT is a regular circuit with a current loop.  The electrons leave the hot cathode (using FET lingo we can all that the source), and then are accelerated by the anode plates and then strike the phosphor.  Then there is a wire on the side of the CRT that acts as the drain for the electrons to complete the circuit.  I am assuming that there may be a voltage jump when the electrons flow from the drain wire back to the hot cathode to sustain the current loop also.  Sorry, I haven't looked at a CRT schematic in many years.

I don't see where you imply there is an issue.  There is an electric field making the electrons move through the current loop just like there is in a wire in a conventional circuit.  Note also that the beam of electrons can be induced to change direction by either an external electric field or by an external magnetic field.  Isn't it the yoke that produces the raster scan?  (i.e. "deflecting coils.) So the yoke is bending the electron beam because it's generating an external magnetic field where there are two "ramp" stimuli, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.  I am assuming that there are CRTs that use horizontal and vertical ramp-function voltage potentials to do the same thing.  So instead of a yoke you have two sets of what look like big parallel plate capacitors, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 10, 2014, 04:44:03 AM
TK:

A CRT is a regular circuit with a current loop.  The electrons leave the hot cathode (using FET lingo we can all that the source), and then are accelerated by the anode plates and then strike the phosphor.  Then there is a wire on the side of the CRT that acts as the drain for the electrons to complete the circuit.  I am assuming that there may be a voltage jump when the electrons flow from the drain wire back to the hot cathode to sustain the current loop also.  Sorry, I haven't looked at a CRT schematic in many years.

I don't see where you imply there is an issue.  There is an electric field making the electrons move through the current loop just like there is in a wire in a conventional circuit.  Note also that the beam of electrons can be induced to change direction by either an external electric field or by an external magnetic field.  Isn't it the yoke that produces the raster scan?  (i.e. "deflecting coils.) So the yoke is bending the electron beam because it's generating an external magnetic field where there are two "ramp" stimuli, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.  I am assuming that there are CRTs that use horizontal and vertical ramp-function voltage potentials to do the same thing.  So instead of a yoke you have two sets of what look like big parallel plate capacitors, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.

MileHigh

"The electrons leave the hot cathode"

Hello Milehigh and TK,

If I recall correctly, I think that the cathode was usually "painted" with a chemical that had a rich supply of electrons available, that when heated with the filament, the electrons would be free to boil on the cathode.  This allowed the tube to have electrons to flow with the high voltage potential of the grid and screens and eventually the plate.

Liberty
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 05:15:36 AM
MH said,
Charge up a capacitor with DC. The plates of the capacitor and the conductors connected to them have a net charge, equal and opposite since charge is a conserved quantity. Install the capacitor in an AC oscillating circuit and the plates and conductors attached to them will have net charges, alternating polarity as the capacitor charges and discharges and recharges in the opposite polarity. Right?

Current flow in a conductor is basically a process of equalizing charge pressure between more positive and more negative unbalanced regions. Only when current stops flowing is charge equalized; conversely, no current flows unless there is a charge imbalance between the ends of the wire. So if you look at a wire carrying current with a very sensitive instrument you will see a voltage drop along the wire, because the wire has a finite resistance. This means that there is a charge imbalance between the ends of the wire, that exists and that can be measured as long as current is flowing in the wire.

The capacitor will have charge and absence of charge on the two plates.  But the wires that supply the current to the two plates of the capacitor will not have any kind of charge imbalance or charge pressure in them.

"Charge imbalance at opposite ends of the wire to induce current flow" is the wrong way of looking it it.  A better way of looking at it is that electrons at some point in a circuit are at some potential level difference compared to some other point in the circuit.  We typically use "ground" as the reference point.  So some electrons can be at a high potential relative to ground but that does not imply some kind of "imbalance" where there are more bunched up electrons on one side of a wire and less bunched up electrons on the other side of a wire.  Yes that happens in capacitors, but they are a different animal.  Capacitors are energy storage devices.

Here is a simple example:

Circuit A is a 10-volt battery connected to a 1-ohm resistor.   Circuit B is a 1-volt battery connected to a 1-ohm resistor.

Are the electrons more densely bunched or imbalanced in Circuit A as compared to Circuit B?

The answer is no, the electrons are evenly distributed in both cases.  However, there are real differences in the relative potential of the electrons in the two circuits.

Let me just switch to conventional current for the rest of this discussion so I don't have to rework everything in my head.

What's the difference between the two circuits?

When the current enters the negative terminal of the battery in Circuit A, it's "takes an elevator ride up by 10 volts in potential" by the time it exits the battery at the positive terminal.  Then when the current hits the resistor it takes a "steep drop" and convert the potential energy into heat.

For Circuit B, the "elevator ride up" from the battery is only one volt, and the drop is a "not so steep drop" with less heat conversion.

Besides that, the current flow and the electron charge density is all the same in both circuits.

All the battery is doing is giving the current a voltage boost from the chemical reactions taking place.

.... see part two... ->
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 05:15:59 AM
Continued...

So here is a thought experiment:   You have two batteries, one is 12 volts, the other one is one million volts.   There is no load on either battery.

When you look at the positive terminals of either battery, does the million-volt battery have more densely packed electrons on it?   (we will ignore the parasitic capacitance between the two terminals that will cause extra charge to appear on the terminals because we are not talking about that aspect.)

So, in my opinion, ignoring the parasitic capacitive effects, you will not observe any difference between the open-circuit positive terminals of each battery.  Both of the positive terminals, being made of metal, will be electrically neutral.   However, the potential of the electrons on the million-volt battery will be much higher that that of the 12-volt battery.

This is pretty "hard core" and I know my limits and all that stuff so I could be wrong in certain aspects.  By in general sense I am pretty confident that I am right.

Almost all circuits are driven by a voltage source.  That means the electric field is king.  The electric field snakes its way through all of the conductors in a circuit.   Some parts of the circuit, and some wires in the circuit may be at very high potential.  In cases like this you have a very very weak electric field inside the high-potential wires.  At the same time, the relative potential of the overall wire itself can be very high.   So you have a very weak electric field at a very high potential.  That may sound contradictory but in fact it's not.

Where you can get a very high electric field is in a resistor.  In wires the electric field strength is very very low, but in resistors the electric field strength can be very high (when you have a large voltage drop).  Sitting on top of all of this is the potential of any point in the circuit with respect to ground.

So you have two concepts of potential going on at the same time.  The first is the concept of relative potential to ground, and the second concept is the local differential potential.  In a wire the local differential potential is almost always very low.

And driving the whole thing is the electric field snaking its way through the wires.   The electrons are just along for the ride as all of this happens.  They don't get more closely bunched up at high voltage potentials.  If all of the electrons in a place in a circuit are at low potential, or if all of the electrons in a place in a circuit are at high potential, there is no difference in local electron density.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 05:34:23 AM
"The electrons leave the hot cathode"

Hello Milehigh and TK,

If I recall correctly, I think that the cathode was usually "painted" with a chemical that had a rich supply of electrons available, that when heated with the filament, the electrons would be free to boil on the cathode.  This allowed the tube to have electrons to flow with the high voltage potential of the grid and screens and eventually the plate.

Liberty

There is no such thing as a "chemical with a rich supply of electrons available."   The cathode is effectively two things at the sane time.  It is the secondary load of a transformer, that's how it heats up.  This is completely isolated from the main circuit which is the second component.  The main circuit pumps electrons through the cathode such that they end up striking the phosphor screen.  The main circuit is the source of the electrons.  The main circuit is not even "aware" that the cathode is also a load resistor for the secondary of a transformer.

The heat facilitates the liberation of the electrons, somewhat akin to heating water facilitates the more rapid evaporation of the water.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 10, 2014, 05:53:55 AM
There is no such thing as a "chemical with a rich supply of electrons available."   The cathode is effectively two things at the sane time.  It is the secondary load of a transformer, that's how it heats up.  This is completely isolated from the main circuit which is the second component.  The main circuit pumps electrons through the cathode such that they end up striking the phosphor screen.  The main circuit is the source of the electrons.  The main circuit is not even "aware" that the cathode is also a load resistor for the secondary of a transformer.

The heat facilitates the liberation of the electrons, somewhat akin to heating water facilitates the more rapid evaporation of the water.

Some tubes use an electrically separate cathode that is heated up by the filament.  Some tubes use the filament itself as the cathode. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 10, 2014, 06:12:29 AM
There is no such thing as a "chemical with a rich supply of electrons available."   The cathode is effectively two things at the sane time.  It is the secondary load of a transformer, that's how it heats up.  This is completely isolated from the main circuit which is the second component.  The main circuit pumps electrons through the cathode such that they end up striking the phosphor screen.  The main circuit is the source of the electrons.  The main circuit is not even "aware" that the cathode is also a load resistor for the secondary of a transformer.

The heat facilitates the liberation of the electrons, somewhat akin to heating water facilitates the more rapid evaporation of the water.

I was taught that the manufactures use a chemical on the cathode.  If they don't, how does a tube wear out or get weak?  Tubes do become weak performers after a time, as there are tube testers to check their operation.  I always thought that it was because the chemical coating on the cathode eventually wore out after a while due to the heat of the filament.  Or not?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 06:27:54 AM
You may be right that there is a chemical coating on the cathode that facilitates the liberation of the electrons.  I honestly don't know.  When I read what you say I am wondering if a substance can act as a sort of catalyst for the liberation of the electrons.  But to be clear, "facilitating" is definitely not being a source of electrons.

For testing tubes, the filament can simply burn out like a light bulb.  I am guessing that that happens less frequently then the other failure mode.  That mode being when the tube loses its partial vacuum.  If the tube leaks and air enters, that will block the transmission of the electrons because they need a rarefied partial vacuum medium.

There are probably other failure modes.  I am old enough to remember tube testers being at the local pharmacy!  lol

It's scary to think that soon there will be adults that never saw CRT-based TVs for sale at Big Box stores, and adults that never walked into a video club to rent a movie!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: CANGAS on October 10, 2014, 07:09:16 AM
Cangas:

I disagree strongly.  Hopefully this new example will swat this nonsensical belief in literal "lines" or "threads" of magnetic field.  There are NO LINES.  The lines are there ONLY to help you visualize the strength and direction of the magnetic field, and that's all.

Look at the attached diagram.  Do you think that there are real "lines" in the air?  What is your common sense telling you?  Now apply that common sense to magnetic fields.

You can't prove that there aren't pink elephants floating over the sky in the center of Greenland either, but you can use your common sense and not let yourself get led down a garden path because you see lines used as a visual aid in diagrams.

MileHigh


u speed reed dont u

It has been proven that speed readers miss over 90% of the content of the stuff they have fleetingly skimmed over. You have ran that up to either 99% or 100%.

My post blatantly stated that FIELD LINES are a useful MODEL.

My post blatantly stated that FIELD LINES may or may not be real, and cannot be proved to either exist or to not exist per se.

Just what is it that you disagree  with me about?

Do you know, or, do you just try to be disagreeable at any opportunity?


CANGAS 87
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 07:36:46 AM
TK:

A CRT is a regular circuit with a current loop.  The electrons leave the hot cathode (using FET lingo we can all that the source), and then are accelerated by the anode plates and then strike the phosphor.  Then there is a wire on the side of the CRT that acts as the drain for the electrons to complete the circuit.  I am assuming that there may be a voltage jump when the electrons flow from the drain wire back to the hot cathode to sustain the current loop also.  Sorry, I haven't looked at a CRT schematic in many years.

I don't see where you imply there is an issue. 
Here is what you said, that I was replying to:
"When you pass DC current through a conductor there is no "Newton balls" phenomenon taking place.  To me "Newton balls" implies electrons enter one end of a conductor and "push" on adjacent electrons to form a chain reaction where electrons at the opposite end of the conductor get "pushed out."  That is not happening."
But that is in fact _exactly_ what is happening. Where do the electrons come from in the cathode ray? THEY COME OUT OF THE WIRE that connects the cathode to the rest of the circuit. They are pushed through the wire by voltage... that is, the electric field, that comes from _individual unit charges_ pushing each other apart. That is what voltage IS !!!

Quote

There is an electric field making the electrons move through the current loop just like there is in a wire in a conventional circuit.  Note also that the beam of electrons can be induced to change direction by either an external electric field or by an external magnetic field.  Isn't it the yoke that produces the raster scan?  (i.e. "deflecting coils.) So the yoke is bending the electron beam because it's generating an external magnetic field where there are two "ramp" stimuli, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.  I am assuming that there are CRTs that use horizontal and vertical ramp-function voltage potentials to do the same thing.  So instead of a yoke you have two sets of what look like big parallel plate capacitors, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.

MileHigh

Do you think an electric field arises as if by magic? The gross electric field comes from having a bunch of tiny, like charges packed together. In situations where there is a varying electric field, like that surrounding a Tesla Coil, the field alternates in polarity at the frequency of _charges oscillating in the tank circuit_, bunching up first in the capacitor and then in the coil.
In a wire, electrons do move, they do come in at one end and go out the other end, as the cathode ray tube proves by allowing one to actually visualize the electrons flowing. They don't generally have to move at the speed of the signal in the wire, because of the Newton's Balls phenomenon where pressure is transferred without gross movements, but in situations like the CRT, it should be obvious that what comes out one end, has to go in the other end.
In a battery, the chemistry does indeed produce an excess of electrons at one pole and a deficit at the other pole. You are describing an electric field and I am telling you where the bulk field comes from in voltage sources: the charges of individual unit charges all added together. And it is the pressure resulting from these charges pushing each other away that IS voltage.
Experience with static machines, where huge charges are built up on surfaces by tiny currents over time, will teach one just what voltage is. In my Dirod, which is hand-cranked, you can actually _feel_ the additional work you do against the EF gradient to push more charge into the reservoirs. This is voltage! In generators you have charges being moved in conductors by moving magnetic fields. The mechanical force is transferred to moving charges and increasing charge pressure as the charges -- the electrons in the conduction band gas if you like-- are swept up and pushed together against their individual repulsions caused by their individual, tiny, fields from the unit charges they carry. If you like, you can just focus on the aggregate field and say that the field is pushing the charges along. But it is doing it as I illustrate, by the fields of individual charges pushing each other in the wire.  After all, the end of the wire connected to the cathode of the CRT can be very very long if I want it to be, far away from any fields that are providing the voltage in the wire in the first place. The wire "shorts" the field and brings its _effects_  (voltage, charge pressure) to the cathode ... and it does it by field pushing on field, little chunks travelling with each individual charge.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 07:38:23 AM
MileHigh, I believe, your implication(s) on electrons behavior in DC (Direct Current) in solid conductor are scientifically supported. Can you show us a link or any reference on that matter?

Edit:

Oops! MH, you are supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier)

Then we have a dilemma.

There is nothing in that reference that contradicts what I have been saying and in fact it provides support for the conduction band electron gas, the charge pressure concept of voltage and etc.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 07:46:58 AM
Continued...

So here is a thought experiment:   You have two batteries, one is 12 volts, the other one is one million volts.   There is no load on either battery.

When you look at the positive terminals of either battery, does the million-volt battery have more densely packed electrons on it?   (we will ignore the parasitic capacitance between the two terminals that will cause extra charge to appear on the terminals because we are not talking about that aspect.)

So, in my opinion, ignoring the parasitic capacitive effects, you will not observe any difference between the open-circuit positive terminals of each battery.  Both of the positive terminals, being made of metal, will be electrically neutral.   However, the potential of the electrons on the million-volt battery will be much higher that that of the 12-volt battery.
You are both right and wrong. "Potential" is a word that was used for voltage, for a good reason. In a battery, the potential is produced by chemical action and exists as Potential: the electrons haven't yet been released from their molecules in order to migrate across the circuit to neutralise the positive ions at the other terminal. But consider a capacitor instead of a battery. Here the charge is not "potential" it is really there and in the 1 million volt cap the whole thing is electrically neutral of course but there are certainly a lot more electrons on the negative side than on the positive side. And if you take the same _capacitance_ of capacitor and only charge it to one volt, there will be less charge _separation_ in the overall electrically neutral capacitor.
Quote
This is pretty "hard core" and I know my limits and all that stuff so I could be wrong in certain aspects.  By in general sense I am pretty confident that I am right.

Almost all circuits are driven by a voltage source.  That means the electric field is king.  The electric field snakes its way through all of the conductors in a circuit.   Some parts of the circuit, and some wires in the circuit may be at very high potential.  In cases like this you have a very very weak electric field inside the high-potential wires.  At the same time, the relative potential of the overall wire itself can be very high.   So you have a very weak electric field at a very high potential.  That may sound contradictory but in fact it's not.

Where you can get a very high electric field is in a resistor.  In wires the electric field strength is very very low, but in resistors the electric field strength can be very high (when you have a large voltage drop).  Sitting on top of all of this is the potential of any point in the circuit with respect to ground.

So you have two concepts of potential going on at the same time.  The first is the concept of relative potential to ground, and the second concept is the local differential potential.  In a wire the local differential potential is almost always very low.

And driving the whole thing is the electric field snaking its way through the wires.   The electrons are just along for the ride as all of this happens.  They don't get more closely bunched up at high voltage potentials.  If all of the electrons in a place in a circuit are at low potential, or if all of the electrons in a place in a circuit are at high potential, there is no difference in local electron density.

MileHigh
Wrong again. It's been a while since you've reviewed your vector calculus, I guess.
Where do you think "potential" comes from, if not from packing electrons (unit charges) closely together by doing work against the electric field they produce? What actually makes the voltage increase on the terminal of a VDG machine as the belt-drive motor works harder and harder as the voltage goes up?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/diverg.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/diverg.html)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 07:54:09 AM
You may be right that there is a chemical coating on the cathode that facilitates the liberation of the electrons.  I honestly don't know.  When I read what you say I am wondering if a substance can act as a sort of catalyst for the liberation of the electrons.  But to be clear, "facilitating" is definitely not being a source of electrons.

For testing tubes, the filament can simply burn out like a light bulb.  I am guessing that that happens less frequently then the other failure mode.  That mode being when the tube loses its partial vacuum.  If the tube leaks and air enters, that will block the transmission of the electrons because they need a rarefied partial vacuum medium.

There are probably other failure modes.  I am old enough to remember tube testers being at the local pharmacy!  lol

It's scary to think that soon there will be adults that never saw CRT-based TVs for sale at Big Box stores, and adults that never walked into a video club to rent a movie!

MileHigh

Cathodes, and filament-cathodes, are coated with a material that facilitates the emission of electrons. You can have cold-field emission if the voltage is high enough, you can have emission from hot surfaces that is greater than the cold-field emission for the same voltage, and you can use materials from which it is easy to knock off electrons, and then you have the best of both worlds. You can get electron emission in greater quantity and at lower temperatures if you use a hot, thoriated cathode material. But the electrons still have to be replaced, they do not deplete in the cathode, they just flow through it. Residual gases or exceeding the tube's ratings can cause premature failure of cathodes but any old radio nut will tell you that you get the longest life from a thermionic tube by leaving it on, 24-7.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 07:57:52 AM
There is no such thing as a "chemical with a rich supply of electrons available."   The cathode is effectively two things at the sane time.  It is the secondary load of a transformer, that's how it heats up.  This is completely isolated from the main circuit which is the second component.  The main circuit pumps electrons through the cathode such that they end up striking the phosphor screen.  The main circuit is the source of the electrons.  The main circuit is not even "aware" that the cathode is also a load resistor for the secondary of a transformer.

The heat facilitates the liberation of the electrons, somewhat akin to heating water facilitates the more rapid evaporation of the water.

And you forgot to mention that the Earth ground, in one form or another, replenishes the electrons that escape from the circuit by missing the anodes and striking the phosphor, so the circuit itself doesn't become depleted of electrons. The Earth is an essentially infinite sink and source of charge (electrons, holes). Which is which is determined by the local voltage level.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 10, 2014, 08:03:13 AM

@milehigh,


I meant a charged isolated conductor only.  So, your answer is 'YES'.

'A moving, charged isolated conductor produces  magnetic field'

1) In any purely mechanical system, work is 'force X distance'.  So, energy, which is total capacity you have, to do   work (either in faster
    rate or slowly) is conserved and total input energy equals the total output energy.

2) So, when you move a charged conductor applying mechanical force, its input and output energy is conserved as or used up as purely
     mechanical energy.    Then from where the charged conductor gets energy to produce magnetic  field which represents electrical energy?

3) Does it mean that magnetic field is created out of nothing? (I mean without input energy?)   
   
4) Does it also mean that moving charged conductor digs out energy from the vaccuum to create magnetic field?

5) Why should a moving charge produce magnetic field at any cost?   Either moving under the influence of electric potential or under
     mechanical force?

6) Does it mean that a magnetic field is absolutely necessary for a moving charge?

7) Does it also  mean that nature prefers creation of magnetic field more than conservation of energy?


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 08:16:33 AM
Mostly it means that your assumptions are still screwed up.

There is only ONE field, the electromagnetic field. Which aspect of it you experience depends on relative motion. If you move along with a moving charge you cannot detect any magnetic field from it, only electric field. But if you are stationary and that same charge moves past you at the same velocity, you see a magnetic field around the path of motion.


Look,  no magnets and no perceptible magnetic field (except in the belt drive motor):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc

Yet the capacitor is charging up with the same kind of voltage that is produced by a generator using magnetic fields. There is only one kind of voltage, and that is charge pressure caused by increasing charge density... and since the electron, a point particle, is the carrier of the unit negative charge, the only way to increase charge density in conductors is to do work against all those little electric fields, forcing more electrons to occupy the same space.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 08:45:20 AM
@MH: Where does the voltage in a battery come from? Yes, it comes from an excess of electrons at one terminal and a deficit of them at the other terminal, and this is produced by the action of the imposed electric field from an external voltage source, on ions during charging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemical_potential
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 10, 2014, 09:50:01 AM

Mostly it means that your assumptions are still screwed up.


Agreed.  I am tightly screwed to ground by a screw jack on my ass.  A charged conductor passes infront of me with terrific speed and I would see a magnetic field around it.  After moving through some distance the conductor stops due to some reason.  So, I will see an electric field around the conductor.

But when magnetic field becomes electric field, I would also see some energy  released by 'self induction' or mutual induction.  What happens to that energy?  Will it come to me and further tighten the screw jack on my ass?
 
If I am blind I would neither see a magnetic field nor electric field but would only feel screw jack getting tightened on my ass.

Input energy = 100% mechanical energy

Output energy = 100% mechanical energy  + Energy released by collapsing magnetic field (energy received from where?)



Look,  no magnets and no perceptible magnetic field (except in the belt drive motor):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc

Yet the capacitor is charging up with the same kind of voltage that is produced by a generator using magnetic fields. There is only one kind of voltage, and that is charge pressure caused by increasing charge density... and since the electron, a point particle, is the carrier of the unit negative charge, the only way to increase charge density in conductors is to do work against all those little electric fields, forcing more electrons to occupy the same space.

I agree with all that.   But as you can see my question is different.   It is about a moving charged conductor producing a magnetic field (even
if it is an illusion) and releasing energy when field collapses.  This energy comes from where?   We are not doing any work on charges because the charges are also moving with the conductor as its integral part.


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 11, 2014, 12:12:52 AM

off that topic, I had an idea to wind a copper wire around a plastic toroid, 4in dia, 1/2in thick, 1/2in deep.  1 layer. Then make a rotor with all magnets N pointing out. just used 2 mags in the test.  It was a slap together thing, a bit off balance in every way, but just tried.  When I applied current to the coil, sometimes the rotor turned CW, sometimes CCW.  The idea was to have the mags close to the inside part of the coil and have the N poles of the mags ride the field spin around those inner windings.  As in a DC motor without pole switching. I chose to use a non magnetic core so as not to have it absorb the field away from the mags.  But a core may help, havnt gotten there yet. Busy with life. Try to get to some experiments here n there. ;) Just throwing it out there. ;) ;D


Mags


Had an idea to build this a 'lil bit' differently.  Will draw it up later in 3D to show what im thinking before I build it.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on October 11, 2014, 02:31:55 AM
@TinselKoala
Quote
In my Dirod, which is hand-cranked, you can actually _feel_ the additional
work you do against the EF gradient to push more charge into the reservoirs.
This is voltage!
Dirod you say?, you know it's funny how one simple word can explain so many things about a person and I built my first Dirod, a Van de Graaff and a Bennett doubler a decade or so ago. I still have A.D.Moores book on electrostatics in the nightstand next to my bed and I am pretty sure I learned more from that book and my simple experiments than most people learn in a lifetime concerning electricity. I'm glad you chimed in as the voice of reason because what I was reading prior was ridiculous in my opinion.
AC
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 11, 2014, 04:07:36 AM
TK:

So, in view of your postings and MH's postings, as well as others, am I to conclude that my circa 1980's electronics text books might have it wrong when they say that, in a circuit, the energy (electrons) flows from positive to the negative.  (Like flowing to ground, which I have always been told)  I have since read (In newer books) that even though the schematic symbol for a diode shows an arrow, the energy flows the opposite way in any circuit.  (From - to +) So, if I am designing a small circuit, or looking at a schematic, would it be better for me to trace the flow from the minus, through the circuit to the positive input?  This seems counter intuitive from what I (thought) I learned all these years playing around.

If I am building a JT type circuit,  I look at the positive end of the battery and trace the flow of "energy" to the resistor, to the base of the transistor...etc.  Does it really matter which way the energy flows?  (although I would really like to know for myself)  I mean, my circuits (most of them) work but, if those older books are indeed outdated, it would be good for me to know.  Is it possible that no one "really" knows?  Or, has something in research since the 80's changed this way of looking at a circuit?

I really do not mean to sound like an idiot here.  You know me and my skill level.  I build some cool things and can do some cool stuff, but other stuff is waaay over my head.  I am trying to fix this.

Thank you,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 07:24:39 AM
@TinselKoalaDirod you say?, you know it's funny how one simple word can explain so many things about a person and I built my first Dirod, a Van de Graaff and a Bennett doubler a decade or so ago. I still have A.D.Moores book on electrostatics in the nightstand next to my bed and I am pretty sure I learned more from that book and my simple experiments than most people learn in a lifetime concerning electricity. I'm glad you chimed in as the voice of reason because what I was reading prior was ridiculous in my opinion.
AC

Well, thanks.  I'd love to see your Dirod, they are rare as hen's teeth. I think I've only seen videos of two or three others on YT.  Yes, AD Moore's book inspired my electrostatic explorations and I also got a lot from Richard Ford's "Homemade Lightning" book. I built my Dirod in 1999. Later on I got a lot of inspiration from the work of Oleg Jefimenko.

Here's my Dirod in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c)
And a little VDG machine and a calibrated ES voltmeter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E

So, some discussion questions for the audience: Is there current flowing in the above demonstration? If so, in which direction?
There are no magnets anywhere in the Dirod or the ppb oscillator or other demo devices shown. How does the system work? Is there a difference between the electricity in the spark at the end of the demos, and the electricity I might have gotten from a power supply or battery to charge up the capacitor bank? Where did the _voltage_ come from? Are the bead chain links charged, or not?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 07:37:27 AM
TK:

So, in view of your postings and MH's postings, as well as others, am I to conclude that my circa 1980's electronics text books might have it wrong when they say that, in a circuit, the energy (electrons) flows from positive to the negative.  (Like flowing to ground, which I have always been told)  I have since read (In newer books) that even though the schematic symbol for a diode shows an arrow, the energy flows the opposite way in any circuit.  (From - to +) So, if I am designing a small circuit, or looking at a schematic, would it be better for me to trace the flow from the minus, through the circuit to the positive input?  This seems counter intuitive from what I (thought) I learned all these years playing around.

If I am building a JT type circuit,  I look at the positive end of the battery and trace the flow of "energy" to the resistor, to the base of the transistor...etc.  Does it really matter which way the energy flows?  (although I would really like to know for myself)  I mean, my circuits (most of them) work but, if those older books are indeed outdated, it would be good for me to know.  Is it possible that no one "really" knows?  Or, has something in research since the 80's changed this way of looking at a circuit?

I really do not mean to sound like an idiot here.  You know me and my skill level.  I build some cool things and can do some cool stuff, but other stuff is waaay over my head.  I am trying to fix this.

Thank you,

Bill
Long before anyone actually discovered the electron and understood that it carried a unit charge and so forth, Benjamin Franklin, who was a great scientist and experimenter, decided that electricity was a kind of fluid that had two characters that he called "negative" and "positive". He made a W.A.G. and assigned the label "negative" to the polarity (of chemical batteries and electrostatic charges) that we now know is actually the source of electrons. And we know that the "flowing" electrons move in the direction from Franklin's "negative" polarity towards the "positive" polarity in actuality and it is this motion of charge that transfers the energy, that is does the work, in an electrical circuit.

But most of the math was worked out before the actual discovery of the electron itself and the realization that it was the fundamental charge carrier in circuits! And the electron is stuck with the label "negative" because of Franklin's wild-ass guess.

So your textbooks are right: the formulae and all the rest of electrical engineering math is stuck with Franklin's conventional flow of "electricity" fluid from Positive to Negative. The Anode is the arrow -> pointing from the more positive polarity to the more negative (or less positive, same thing). It's a convention, that's all, like driving on the left side of the road in the UK.

And the present understanding is also right: the actual flow of charge goes from Negative to Positive. But so what? The math is based on the other side of the convention, they are just words. There is nothing inherently "negative" or "positive" about electrons, protons and charge! Franklin could just as well have called them Male and Female, as he felt that there were indeed two fluids involved in his concept of electricity.

So when you do your circuit analysis, choose components, calculate power, etc etc, you use the convention of electricity flowing from positive to negative polarity. But if you want to understand what is happening on a deeper level, a quantum level if you will, then you must leave convention where it belongs and start looking at the underlying phenomena, including electrons as charge carriers travelling in the opposite direction to the conventional Anode arrows, etc.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 11, 2014, 07:54:45 AM
TK:

Thank you for that great answer.  I really do appreciate that more than you know.  I am attempting to fill in the gaps in my knowledge and, the more I learn, the more gaps I find that I have.

Thanks again,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 11, 2014, 10:12:34 AM
Well, thanks.  I'd love to see your Dirod, they are rare as hen's teeth. I think I've only seen videos of two or three others on YT.  Yes, AD Moore's book inspired my electrostatic explorations and I also got a lot from Richard Ford's "Homemade Lightning" book. I built my Dirod in 1999. Later on I got a lot of inspiration from the work of Oleg Jefimenko.

Here's my Dirod in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c)
And a little VDG machine and a calibrated ES voltmeter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E)

So, some discussion questions for the audience: Is there current flowing in the above demonstration? If so, in which direction?
There are no magnets anywhere in the Dirod or the ppb oscillator or other demo devices shown. How does the system work? Is there a difference between the electricity in the spark at the end of the demos, and the electricity I might have gotten from a power supply or battery to charge up the capacitor bank? Where did the _voltage_ come from? Are the bead chain links charged, or not?


Well this is electrostatic induction. So in the ball we have movement of charges or not.
The ball is an AC current.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on October 11, 2014, 01:24:06 PM
A possible secondary experiment would be to apply enough current to heat the iron wire pretty good, then freeze the wire with freeze spray while removing the current.  ;D

off that topic, I had an idea to wind a copper wire around a plastic toroid, 4in dia, 1/2in thick, 1/2in deep.  1 layer. Then make a rotor with all magnets N pointing out. just used 2 mags in the test.  It was a slap together thing, a bit off balance in every way, but just tried. When I applied current to the coil, sometimes the rotor turned CW, sometimes CCW.  The idea was to have the mags close to the inside part of the coil and have the N poles of the mags ride the field spin around those inner windings.  As in a DC motor without pole switching. I chose to use a non magnetic core so as not to have it absorb the field away from the mags.  But a core may help, havnt gotten there yet. Busy with life. Try to get to some experiments here n there. ;) Just throwing it out there. ;) ;D


Mags
Hey Mags
 Was it direct current or were you pulsing the coil.

Iv been thinking about the way a motor works
A current carrying wire is pushed out of the magnetic field, if the current runs one way its expelled in one direction, change direction of the current and the wire is expelled in the other direction.

I wonder if a pancake coil is sandwiched between two toroid speaker magnets and a current is pulsed into the center of the coil will the magnet add energy to the electrons as they are pushed out, and will there be any bemf.

Instead of trying to collect more electrons from the ambient can we add energy to the electrons we already have.
Its just something Iv been wanting to try.

electron acceleration?
So many idea's so little time.
I know what you mean by work and family, I need to spend more time on both.

dave
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on October 11, 2014, 01:31:24 PM
Here's my Dirod in action
Awesome build
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 11, 2014, 03:19:04 PM
You can have cold-field emission if the voltage is high enough, you can have emission from hot surfaces that is greater than the cold-field emission for the same voltage, and you can use materials from which it is easy to knock off electrons, and then you have the best of both worlds. You can get electron emission in greater quantity and at lower temperatures if you use a hot, thoriated cathode material.

And so it is in the magnetron of the simple microwave oven.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 11, 2014, 03:25:41 PM
So we have a wire conected across a battery. What is the polarity of the magnetic field produced around the wire ?. Dose it change from one end to the other-from positive side of the battery to the negative side. Or do we have a monopole field?. If a magnetic field is built around the wire,what is going on inside the battery as far as a magnetic field is concerned?. Would we have one field being formed around the outer steel casing of the battery(normally the negative),and the opposite field polarity on the carbon inner rod of the battery(normally the positive)?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 04:49:39 PM

Well this is electrostatic induction. So in the ball we have movement of charges or not.
The ball is an AC current.

But the Dirod generator is strictly a DC machine. One side is positively charged, the other side negatively charged. How can there be an AC current coming from a DC generator?

(This is a discussion question, not a position statement!)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 05:16:18 PM
So we have a wire conected across a battery. What is the polarity of the magnetic field produced around the wire ?. Dose it change from one end to the other-from positive side of the battery to the negative side. Or do we have a monopole field?. If a magnetic field is built around the wire,what is going on inside the battery as far as a magnetic field is concerned?. Would we have one field being formed around the outer steel casing of the battery(normally the negative),and the opposite field polarity on the carbon inner rod of the battery(normally the positive)?.
The magnetic field produced by a current-carrying wire is _around_ the wire and you can visualize it as circular loops of field. Polarity is "direction" of the loops, there aren't really "N" and "S" poles to a circular field line or the field itself. The conventional direction of electricity flow is from the positive pole of the source to the negative pole. So if you point your right thumb in this direction along the wire and curl your fingers around the wire, the fingers will be describing the "direction" of the magnetic field around the wire. And you can demonstrate this with a magnetic compass. Believe it or not, for at least 20 years after electricity was being demonstrated in the laboratory, people did not understand that there was a magnetic field associated with current-carrying wires. The story is that it was actually discovered by accident during a classroom demonstration intended to prove that there was NO field around the wire, by Oersted in 1820.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_%C3%98rsted#Electromagnetism
Inside the battery, there is a lot of electrochemistry happening and there isn't really a large coherent region where electron current flows. If you had small enough and sensitive enough instruments you could find net magnetic fields inside batteries, but you can demonstrate for yourself that batteries and ordinary magnetic fields don't interact much, by bringing a strong magnet near to a battery that is powering something.
 
"Dose it change from one end to the other-from positive side of the battery to the negative side. Or do we have a monopole field?" Neither one. The field is constant all along the wire and there is no such thing as a "monopole" magnetic field. You can arrange magnets, as in Halbach arrays, so that you only _see_ one polarity outside the bulk structure, but you can be assured that every field line emitted by the thing is in fact a closed loop that has no terminations. DivB=0.

Now it should be plain that if you have a field that is like onion skin shells around the straight wire, if you coil the wire into a solenoidal coil, the "shells" reinforce and add, and you now get a structure that makes "poles", where one end of the solenoid has a lot of field line "directions" coming out, and the other  end has field line "directions" that go in, and they loop completely through and around the whole solenoid. Again, the in and out are conventions, nothing is really flowing along the "lines of flux" of a magnetic field, unless you put it there.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 05:18:24 PM
Awesome build
Thanks, I am especially proud of this unit. Unfortunately it is in limbo, in storage in Canada along with a bunch of other really neat stuff that I'll probably never see again.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on October 11, 2014, 05:36:29 PM
    Does induction involve conversion of the kinetic energy of the conductor free electrons from random motion to orderly motion? 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on October 11, 2014, 06:35:11 PM
@TK
Quote
So your textbooks are right: the formulae and all the rest of electrical
engineering math is stuck with Franklin's conventional flow of "electricity"
fluid from Positive to Negative. The Anode is the arrow -> pointing from the
more positive polarity to the more negative (or less positive, same thing). It's
a convention, that's all, like driving on the left side of the road in the
UK.

And the present understanding is also right: the actual flow of
charge goes from Negative to Positive. But so what? The math is based on the
other side of the convention, they are just words. There is nothing inherently
"negative" or "positive" about electrons, protons and charge! Franklin could
just as well have called them Male and Female, as he felt that there were indeed
two fluids involved in his concept of electricity.
I started using electron flow notation exclusively about 15 years ago when my primary area of research was electrostatics, personally I find it easier.
A simple analogy may be to see conductors as a basket of apples and oranges, if there an equal number of apples and oranges the charge is neutral. If there are more apples then the basket has an apple charge and if the there are less apples then there must be more oranges and the basket has an orange charge. When we move the apples to and from the basket then this motion of the apples is called an electric current.
Apples are electrons oranges protons.
We could also say if the apples are moving it is an electric current of apples and if the oranges are moving so must the basket or conductor of apples.
We say this because the protons are bound to electrons in the material of the conductor and must move with it. On the other hand the free electrons may move within the material producing a charge separation in objects or produce a net charge if an alternative path is present and this motion is called an electric current.
It is funny that something so simple could cause so much confusion which is why I believe the basics are so important. I think understanding the basics may lead to more questions and these questions answers.
As such we could say most of our technology is nothing more than a basket of fruit, apples and oranges, we pump out apples into a loop or circuit only to have the same apples return to the same basket. Apples and oranges are not Energy, the pumping action which caused the apples to move is work and the motion of the apples Energy. Now if we could just find some apples which refused to stop moving our troubles would be over, lol.
I think it's kind of neat how a small change in context can produce a large change in our perception of things and how they work.

AC
 
 
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 11, 2014, 06:35:21 PM

 but you can be assured that every field line emitted by the thing is in fact a closed loop that has no terminations. DivB=0.



Somewhere I had read that  magnetic field or field lines around a magnet extends upto infinity  but  you will feel  magnetic force only upto some distance from poles because field lines will be concentrated near the poles and will diverge out at farther distances.

So,  if you keep some sort of magnetic field or field line 'sucker'  inside the magnet and go on sucking field lines towards magnet,  will the strength of field near the poles become infinity?  Because field lines come closer and closer rising the density of flux near the poles?

Situation is somewhat like a star go on sucking its mass towards centre and gets converted into a black hole with terrific Gravitational field strength around it.

Just a crazy question.    Please don't take it seriousley.











Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 11, 2014, 10:11:07 PM
@TKI started using electron flow notation exclusively about 15 years ago when my primary area of research was electrostatics, personally I find it easier.
A simple analogy may be to see conductors as a basket of apples and oranges, if there an equal number of apples and oranges the charge is neutral. If there are more apples then the basket has an apple charge and if the there are less apples then there must be more oranges and the basket has an orange charge. When we move the apples to and from the basket then this motion of the apples is called an electric current.
Apples are electrons oranges protons.
We could also say if the apples are moving it is an electric current of apples and if the oranges are moving so must the basket or conductor of apples.
We say this because the protons are bound to electrons in the material of the conductor and must move with it. On the other hand the free electrons may move within the material producing a charge separation in objects or produce a net charge if an alternative path is present and this motion is called an electric current.
It is funny that something so simple could cause so much confusion which is why I believe the basics are so important. I think understanding the basics may lead to more questions and these questions answers.
As such we could say most of our technology is nothing more than a basket of fruit, apples and oranges, we pump out apples into a loop or circuit only to have the same apples return to the same basket. Apples and oranges are not Energy, the pumping action which caused the apples to move is work and the motion of the apples Energy. Now if we could just find some apples which refused to stop moving our troubles would be over, lol.
I think it's kind of neat how a small change in context can produce a large change in our perception of things and how they work.

AC


This is all clear to me. But the question at the beggining of the thread was if  move apples int the conductor how come that the resulting magnetic field around this same conductor is static?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 11, 2014, 10:19:00 PM
Hey Mags
 Was it direct current or were you pulsing the coil.

Iv been thinking about the way a motor works
A current carrying wire is pushed out of the magnetic field, if the current runs one way its expelled in one direction, change direction of the current and the wire is expelled in the other direction.

I wonder if a pancake coil is sandwiched between two toroid speaker magnets and a current is pulsed into the center of the coil will the magnet add energy to the electrons as they are pushed out, and will there be any bemf.

Instead of trying to collect more electrons from the ambient can we add energy to the electrons we already have.
Its just something Iv been wanting to try.

electron acceleration?
So many idea's so little time.
I know what you mean by work and family, I need to spend more time on both.

dave

Hey Dave

Ever seen these mono polar motors with the disk mag magnetized to the AA battery and the wire loop that spins around it?  Well this should be similar except im not using 1 wire as they are, but have a rotor with the say N poles of multiple mags very close to the inside windings of a toroid coil. Like Faraday, with current flowing in all the wires the same direction, the rotor should spin with DC applied to the coil.

The other way of doing it would be to have say 2 copper rings, a top and bottom with many thin wires attached from the bottom ring to the top ring, probably as many as possible so there is no spacing between thin wires, then apply dc or pulsing to the top and bottom rings so all the thin wires conduct current in the same direction. This should make the rotor move, all mags with same pole outward.  The first one like I said was simple rough slap together, nowhere near perfect. But the rotor would pop into acceleration just tapping the coil ends with voltage.  I dont know why it would go in either direction at times. could have been spacing of the toroid windings. Inside the say air core toroid, when dc current is applied, the field is oriented in one direction internally, and on the outside of the windings the field is oriented in the opposite direction. So using the toroid model may pose issues as to how it affects the facing field of the magnets once current is applied, due to the field of the mag is inside an outside of the toroid winding before current is applied. But my 2 rings with thin wires vertical from the bottom and top ring eliminates some of the toroidal core area concentration. 

Im planning the build at my shop as we speak. Going with the top and bottom ring with thin wires. Thought of just a short copper tube, 2in is what I have, but I believe there would be too much eddy currents vs thin vertical wires in parallel.  ;)    Plus, in the tube,  if we attach input wires to the top and bottom of the copper tube, would currents be equal and in the same straight up or down direction in all portions of the tube. 

hope to complete today.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 12, 2014, 02:58:53 AM
Thanks, I am especially proud of this unit. Unfortunately it is in limbo, in storage in Canada along with a bunch of other really neat stuff that I'll probably never see again.
This is not good TK-can you not get it all shiped down to you?. Would be awsome to see all your old gear up and running again.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 03:19:36 AM

This is all clear to me. But the question at the beggining of the thread was if  move apples int the conductor how come that the resulting magnetic field around this same conductor is static?
This has been answered several times. Is there some problem with your understanding of the answer you have already been given?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: SeaMonkey on October 12, 2014, 03:22:18 AM
Knowns, unknowns, and beyond.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 03:23:36 AM
Hey Dave

Ever seen these mono polar motors with the disk mag magnetized to the AA battery and the wire loop that spins around it?  Well this should be similar except im not using 1 wire as they are, but have a rotor with the say N poles of multiple mags very close to the inside windings of a toroid coil. Like Faraday, with current flowing in all the wires the same direction, the rotor should spin with DC applied to the coil.

The other way of doing it would be to have say 2 copper rings, a top and bottom with many thin wires attached from the bottom ring to the top ring, probably as many as possible so there is no spacing between thin wires, then apply dc or pulsing to the top and bottom rings so all the thin wires conduct current in the same direction. This should make the rotor move, all mags with same pole outward.  The first one like I said was simple rough slap together, nowhere near perfect. But the rotor would pop into acceleration just tapping the coil ends with voltage.  I dont know why it would go in either direction at times. could have been spacing of the toroid windings. Inside the say air core toroid, when dc current is applied, the field is oriented in one direction internally, and on the outside of the windings the field is oriented in the opposite direction. So using the toroid model may pose issues as to how it affects the facing field of the magnets once current is applied, due to the field of the mag is inside an outside of the toroid winding before current is applied. But my 2 rings with thin wires vertical from the bottom and top ring eliminates some of the toroidal core area concentration. 

Im planning the build at my shop as we speak. Going with the top and bottom ring with thin wires. Thought of just a short copper tube, 2in is what I have, but I believe there would be too much eddy currents vs thin vertical wires in parallel.  ;)    Plus, in the tube,  if we attach input wires to the top and bottom of the copper tube, would currents be equal and in the same straight up or down direction in all portions of the tube. 

hope to complete today.

Mags
If I am understanding your description properly, I made a device something like that back in 2000 sometime. It was the first AC homopolar generator I encountered. Not super efficient but if you spun it you could clearly see the alternating current it generated.

In your reversible one, are you sure you weren't seeing the Marinov Ball Bearing Motor effect in your bearings and shafts, instead of the homopolar dynamo effect in the disc?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 03:24:18 AM
This is not good TK-can you not get it all shiped down to you?. Would be awsome to see all your old gear up and running again.
Yes, it is not good. Please check your PMs!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 12, 2014, 04:17:09 AM
If I am understanding your description properly, I made a device something like that back in 2000 sometime. It was the first AC homopolar generator I encountered. Not super efficient but if you spun it you could clearly see the alternating current it generated.

In your reversible one, are you sure you weren't seeing the Marinov Ball Bearing Motor effect in your bearings and shafts, instead of the homopolar dynamo effect in the disc?


Hey T

While looking through all my stuff(good junk ;D ) to build the dual ring, thin wire design, I found the toroid coil and rotor I messed with back then.  The toroid is wound on a pvc board ring, about 4in in dia 1/2in thick and 1/2in deep I wound it tight with 26awg 1 layer all the way around.  The rotor was not as good as I have shown in previous projects, a lil off center. Rotor has 4 1/4in x 1/8in neo disks. Im going to fix that setup to see more what was happening and show.

So the mags of the rotor are all N out, or south, but all the same. Ill have to check if N, but I usually tend to favor N in these cases just to do so. The rotor is mounted inside the toroid so mags are all facing the inside of the coil as it spins.  I imagined that the rotor would spin when dc was applied to the coil. But sometimes the rotor would just jerk into motion, one direction or the other when the source dc was first applied. but no constant spin. I got sidetracked soon and went to another seemingly more important project. 

So all this talk here reminded me of it. So Im putting it back on the table.  The 2 copper rings with thin wires soldered from the top ring to the bottom would be to simulate the inner side of the toroid windings without the complete wraparound of the toroid, so all the wires from top ring to bottom ring have current in the same direction, down or up.  In order for it to be a dc gen, I would say that mags would have to be all the way around the rotor as to affect all the vertical wires equally, or close to equally, otherwise the wires not induced by the mags would dissipate the currents generated output due to all wires in parallel connected to the top and bottom rings.

Sort of if instead of 1 loop of wire from top to bottom of a AA battery with a magnet stuck to the bottom of the battery, we encompass the whole battery/mag combo with many wires. Also, instead of the magnet at the bottom(or top) of the AA battery as we have seen many times, we get the magnet(rotor mags) close to the surface of the spinning wire(my case spinning rotor), instead of working the magnet at a distance as shown in these simple 1 wire loop motors.

Hope that makes sense till I get it together. Working on it tomorrow.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 05:05:57 AM
@Mags... ok, I see. Yes, it makes sense. And I have a new little homopolar motor that I'll be showing in a little while myself, nothing new but perhaps a little different than what is normally shown.

Here's something for you to try: But you have to use a saturable-cored toroid for this. Instead of having the rotor and toroid in the same plane, mount the axle of the rotor along a diameter of the toroid, so that they are at right angles. Then you will have the rotor magnets "cogging" at the closest approach to the toroid... and then if you pulse the toroid, it will saturate the core and reduce the rotor magnet attraction for as long as the pulse is on. You can turn this effect into a motor drive. It's the basis of the Steorn Orbo, actually, what I call a CEPM, core effect pulse motor, a very interesting critter, it operates not on repulsion or attraction, but by reducing attraction as the magnet moves away from the "cogging" position.
Good luck, I will be very interested in what you come up with. I'd love to follow along on my own but I can't maintain the necessary tolerances with my present restricted toolkit.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on October 12, 2014, 05:34:09 AM
I thought I would throw this out to everyone here for consideration.
Now at the beginning of this thread poynt99 suggested that a magnet had no transition point near the field center. I would agree with the notion that a magnet may have an aggregate polarity internally relating to magnetic domains however I would disagree that the external field reflects this line of thought and what is depicted in every textbook.


I found the image below a few years ago at this site: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/apr/08/new-probe-measures-magnetic-fields-inside-solids (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/apr/08/new-probe-measures-magnetic-fields-inside-solids).


I should also state that I had mapped the magnetic fields of many magnet shapes using an Arduino/labview interface and a purpose built Hall Effect Array many years ago. The image below peaked my curiosity because my hall effect mapping was almost identical to the image I have illegally copied or not found below but that is neither here nor there.


Now you know I just have to ask the question?, which is why most everything I know disagree's with Poynt99's thought's concerning the magnetic field. I'm not pointing fingers or saying anyone is right or wrong here... persay. I'm just saying I find it fascinating that two intelligent and well educated people could come to such different conclusions.


I will let everyone here decide which is obviously a bad choice and I hope Poynt99 chimes in because I believe we all want the same thing despite our differences in opinion. We all want the truth and my truth would seem to be very different than the common consensus. So yes poynt99, you started this thread let's get it on and see where it leads us.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 12, 2014, 05:53:22 AM
@Mags... ok, I see. Yes, it makes sense. And I have a new little homopolar motor that I'll be showing in a little while myself, nothing new but perhaps a little different than what is normally shown.

Here's something for you to try: But you have to use a saturable-cored toroid for this. Instead of having the rotor and toroid in the same plane, mount the axle of the rotor along a diameter of the toroid, so that they are at right angles. Then you will have the rotor magnets "cogging" at the closest approach to the toroid... and then if you pulse the toroid, it will saturate the core and reduce the rotor magnet attraction for as long as the pulse is on. You can turn this effect into a motor drive. It's the basis of the Steorn Orbo, actually, what I call a CEPM, core effect pulse motor, a very interesting critter, it operates not on repulsion or attraction, but by reducing attraction as the magnet moves away from the "cogging" position.
Good luck, I will be very interested in what you come up with. I'd love to follow along on my own but I can't maintain the necessary tolerances with my present restricted toolkit.

Thanks T.   Yes I am familiar with the orbo principle.  ;)   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrtGzxOKpwQ&list=UUjjcpZL8tkpn4WGkU2y_lPQ

And, maybe you hadnt seen the Orbonbon solid state orbo that I created about 2 months before Naudin had shown his solid state version....  There was a thread back then discussing solidstate orbo possibilities, and this is what I had come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ljx1py-BUs&list=UUjjcpZL8tkpn4WGkU2y_lPQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYXU_ClBrIA&list=UUjjcpZL8tkpn4WGkU2y_lPQ

It was about the size of a bonbon.  ;)   I gave it a name as you had the Orbette.  ;D

Back to the subject.

What Im thinking is just like Faraday showing 1 wire wants to move when current is applied to it while it is perpendicular to the pole of a magnet, im trying to have a succession of wires next to each other with current flowing in all of them in the same direction but the magnet moves instead. Like I said earlier, the toroid coil may have caused issues with continuous spin due to the concentration of field within the core(plastic, air, etc) vs the field outside the winding in the opposing direction.  I had many thoughts before fiddling, as to the possibility that the field within the toroids core could possibly pull the magnet around, or the field outside the winding would pul the rotor the other way. Get it? :)   But I got strange results. So we will see those results when I straighten out the rotor balance issue and make a vid of that. Then Ill make the vertical wires setup after.  With all the many vertical wires in parallel around the rotor. Ill try current limiting for dc input and pulsing input like used in a very low ohm switching supply primary to eliminate the current limiting.

Im interested to see what you have come up with here also. ;) ;D

Mags

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 12, 2014, 06:08:30 AM
I thought I would throw this out to everyone here for consideration.
Now at the beginning of this thread poynt99 suggested that a magnet had no transition point near the field center. I would agree with the notion that a magnet may have an aggregate polarity internally relating to magnetic domains however I would disagree that the external field reflects this line of thought and what is depicted in every textbook.


I found the image below a few years ago at this site: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/apr/08/new-probe-measures-magnetic-fields-inside-solids (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/apr/08/new-probe-measures-magnetic-fields-inside-solids).


I should also state that I had mapped the magnetic fields of many magnet shapes using an Arduino/labview interface and a purpose built Hall Effect Array many years ago. The image below peaked my curiosity because my hall effect mapping was almost identical to the image I have illegally copied or not found below but that is neither here nor there.


Now you know I just have to ask the question?, which is why most everything I know disagree's with Poynt99's thought's concerning the magnetic field. I'm not pointing fingers or saying anyone is right or wrong here... persay. I'm just saying I find it fascinating that two intelligent and well educated people could come to such different conclusions.


I will let everyone here decide which is obviously a bad choice and I hope Poynt99 chimes in because I believe we all want the same thing despite our differences in opinion. We all want the truth and my truth would seem to be very different than the common consensus. So yes poynt99, you started this thread let's get it on and see where it leads us.


AC

Interesting. ;)   lets say there were lines of force just for example. Also for example sake, N and S have a flow direction, from N(outside the magnet) to south. So in the pic you have shown, the field line exits the N and enters the S.

I can imagine that a N out field line may not just be attracted to only the S pole, but can loop back toward any part of the side of the magnet as if it were a bunch of little magnets(domains) in a row or  train of little magnets. Especially the N field lines exiting the N pole close to the outer ends of the face of the N pole, and the lines from the center of the pole possibly go out the furthest and end up reaching to the S pole side of the mag. Like if we break or cut the magnet in half, each will have the same magnetic orientation as the original. So your pic makes perfect sense to me as compared to just the N field line turning all the way back to just the S pole. 

As with a coil, there just might be the same circumstances. Not sure.

Mags


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on October 12, 2014, 06:18:03 AM
check your pm, personal messages

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: CANGAS on October 12, 2014, 08:08:14 AM
The magnetic field produced by a current-carrying wire is _around_ the wire and you can visualize it as circular loops of field. Polarity is "direction" of the loops, there aren't really "N" and "S" poles to a circular field line or the field itself. The conventional direction of electricity flow is from the positive pole of the source to the negative pole. So if you point your right thumb in this direction along the wire and curl your fingers around the wire, the fingers will be describing the "direction" of the magnetic field around the wire. And you can demonstrate this with a magnetic compass. Believe it or not, for at least 20 years after electricity was being demonstrated in the laboratory, people did not understand that there was a magnetic field associated with current-carrying wires. The story is that it was actually discovered by accident during a classroom demonstration intended to prove that there was NO field around the wire, by Oersted in 1820.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_%C3%98rsted#Electromagnetism
Inside the battery, there is a lot of electrochemistry happening and there isn't really a large coherent region where electron current flows. If you had small enough and sensitive enough instruments you could find net magnetic fields inside batteries, but you can demonstrate for yourself that batteries and ordinary magnetic fields don't interact much, by bringing a strong magnet near to a battery that is powering something.
 
"Dose it change from one end to the other-from positive side of the battery to the negative side. Or do we have a monopole field?" Neither one. The field is constant all along the wire and there is no such thing as a "monopole" magnetic field. You can arrange magnets, as in Halbach arrays, so that you only _see_ one polarity outside the bulk structure, but you can be assured that every field line emitted by the thing is in fact a closed loop that has no terminations. DivB=0.

Now it should be plain that if you have a field that is like onion skin shells around the straight wire, if you coil the wire into a solenoidal coil, the "shells" reinforce and add, and you now get a structure that makes "poles", where one end of the solenoid has a lot of field line "directions" coming out, and the other  end has field line "directions" that go in, and they loop completely through and around the whole solenoid. Again, the in and out are conventions, nothing is really flowing along the "lines of flux" of a magnetic field, unless you put it there.


Tink (this is simply a convenient way for me to use less keystrokes to refer to you, if you are in the least offended I will gladly do something else); you are doing OK till you get to the last sentence.

Quote
Again, the in and out are conventions, nothing is really flowing along the "lines of flux" of a magnetic field, unless you put it there.

I explain. Using the lines of flux, or, lines of force, as our mutually agreeable arbitrary model, we do need to visualize something as flowing on the lines. Momentum. The direction of the lines of force is a reliable indicator of the way in which momentum is transferred between one magnetic body and the other body which is being influenced. The imagining of an in and out flow of momentum along field lines is a necessary consequence of the use of "field lines" as an arbitrary visualization aid.


CANGAS 88*

*Hey look at me, I'm like the first rock n roll song Rocket 88.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 08:26:34 AM
Can you provide some reference for this idea of momentum flowing along magnetic field lines?


Anyhow, here's the small homopolar motor I promised. What is making it turn? What is being pushed against, and how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 12, 2014, 08:43:37 AM
Argh. Charge, motion, field: one thing. One.

What is moving? Charge. What is the smallest chunk of charge? The Unit Charge. Where are these charge chunks? The Negative one is carried by and is inseparable from the electron. The positive one is carried by the proton, and also the positron (the electron's antiparticle). Normally we never actually see those positive charge carrying particles because the proton is buried deep within the nucleus of atoms and the positron is only made in energetic reactions and doesn't stick around very long. So the positive charges we see, like on the top of a positive Van De Graaff machine, are actually "holes"... deficiencies in electrons, places where electrons should be to make everything neutral, but for some reason they aren't there.
OK, now in wires carrying current, you can think of the charge moving fast through the "electron gas" of conduction band electrons, like the momentum moves through a Newton's Balls system, or if it is easier you can think of the electrons themselves flowing along in the wire. Either way, the current (moving charge) is pushed along by the fact that at one end of the wire there is more negative charge than at the other. This of course also means that there is more _positive charge_ at the other end of the wire-- holes where electrons should be.
The reason metals don't flow and collapse from all this electron charge moving around is because there are a bloody _lot_ of electrons, a Coulomb is a huge number of them, and even with currents of kilo or megaAmperes we are still only moving a tiny fraction of the electrons in the wire.
Now, when you move a charge you get an associated magnetic field around it. The field has geometry and strength that is determined by the path and speed of the moving charge. You can think of it like the bow wave ahead of a moving boat. Each moving charge has its tiny "bow wave" of a magnetic field circling around the path of  motion. (But what acts as the "water" in this analogy? That's a very deep question.) But there are many many many charges moving in even the smallest currents. So if you were really tiny and could watch your wire, and a tiny single charge came by, being pushed from behind by MH's "field" or by charge pressure from the charges behind it (same thing) you would see a bump on your field detector as the charge came by. So a DC current--- a single moving charge -- generates a dynamic, changing field at your fixed location as the charge moves past. But there are many many many charges flowing in the tiniest real DC current, so you see what looks like a strong, static field at your measurement point, as the charges flow past so many and so fast your finest instrument can't tell them from a continuous flow of homogeneous fluid.

Now we do know why, or rather how, a boat makes a bow wave. You can't really move through the water without making one and the faster you go the bigger the wave. Charges make magnetic fields as they move relative to the observer. If the observer moves along with the charge... you don't see the magnetic field (because the field just describes how a thing will move and you are already moving that way) but you do see the electric field from the charge which isn't moving with respect to you. Now that duality of electric and magnetic fields, discriminated only by relative motion, is, to me, a grand mystery of the Universe. "Why" does that happen? Well, some people believe that that question can be answered in a meaningful way, and that's why they go out and build particle accelerators and learn complex mathematics. I just look around in awe, myself, and give thanks that things are the way they are. Maybe they could be different... but I doubt it.


eta: The electron's charge cannot be removed from it, but an electron isn't "just" a packet of the Unit Negative charge. It has mass and spin angular momentum as well. What is really weird is that it does not appear to have a "size"... it is considered a point particle, or a probability cloud.


I checked back.
I know what you mean. Thanks
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: CANGAS on October 12, 2014, 09:35:11 AM
Can you provide some reference for this idea of momentum flowing along magnetic field lines?


Anyhow, here's the small homopolar motor I promised. What is making it turn? What is being pushed against, and how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s


Can I provide a reference? If I had a dime for every time I have seen an internet shyster raise this as his defense, his skirt to hide behind.....

Well, you see, actually , Yo hero Tesla did not have a reference to provide all the time, did he?

The best reference for momentum and field lines would be your own physics wisdom and understanding, but you have just been seen to drop the ball and cleverly try to switch the subject so subtlely that nobody has noticed it.

You have evaded the issue momentarily, but I am not lured by any kind of sly trick you might pull out of your cuff. I know a bit about homopolar motors, and it is almost certain that any gimmick you might have to show is one that I have already discovered in my studies.

I do not do Youtube thingys for several reasons. So I have not looked at your Youtube thingy. But, of course, I bow down to the unlimited truth that everything that can be seen on a sleezy Youtube clip MUST be the perfect truth, OK?


CANGAS 89
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 09:42:01 AM
So that would be a "no" then. And now you are back to being the CANGAS we know and love. I was worried about you there for a moment. When you start to agree with me, I need to go back and check my work very carefully.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: bboj on October 12, 2014, 09:59:42 AM
Can you provide some reference for this idea of momentum flowing along magnetic field lines?


Anyhow, here's the small homopolar motor I promised. What is making it turn? What is being pushed against, and how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s)



I think it pushes against the magnetic field induced in the brush.
The brush is not in contact all the time but is pulsing.








Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 12, 2014, 03:19:06 PM
someone said in TA thread that magnetic field is move at ~60x speed of light, magnetic field is not static but i dont know he said that for PM or electromagnet (coil) or both. i can not recall his name.


Does it mean that massless entities can travel with a speed faster than light?   Even liquids and gases are  static when held in a container but individual molecules will be moving in all directions hitting the wall of container and we call it as 'pressure'.    Analogically is there anything like 'magnetic field pressure?'   


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on October 12, 2014, 07:13:36 PM
     Does a conductor moving through a uniform magnetic field develop voltage between the ends of the conductor?  In a unipolar generator you can spin the magnets along with the disk.  What I believe is happening is that  the magnetic field aligns the electrons.   This counteracts the coulomb force trying to disperse the electrons.   The electrons on the inner part of the disk experience less change of position than the electrons on the periphery.   This creates a negative charged pole on the inner parts of the disk.  As you move to the periphery of the disk the electrons are moving and residing in that space for less time.  Entropy takes over and electrons move from the higher state of order to the lower state of order.   I would like to build one of these with an inner ring and an outer ring seperated by an insulator to prove this.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on October 12, 2014, 08:39:44 PM
Hi All,

Hi Sparks,

Here are some sources for what your describing. If a dielectric is spun between a charged capacitor plate the dielectric will become magnetic.

Henry Augustus Rowland, Rowland Effect (1887) - "...carried out a well-known research on the effect of an electrically charged body in motion, showing it give rise to a magnetic field."

reference: On The Electromagnetic Effect of Convection-Currents (1889)
https://archive.org/details/onelectromagneti00rowl

Wilhelm Roetgens Experiment (1888) - "...discovered in 1888 that a dielectric became magnetized when moving in a uniform electric field."

Paper: Electromagnetic Fields in Moving and Inhomogeneous Dielectrics, 2001

http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:9054/FULLTEXT01

Rowland-Vasilescu Karpen's Effect

"A modern reproduction of this experiment consists in connecting a disk of hard rubber or an old phonograph record to the shaft of an electric motor. The disk is electro-statically charged by rubbing it with a piece of woolen cloth. Then, it is set in rotation and a magnetic compass is approached close to it. The needle is deflected; the faster the rotation, the greater the deflection."

source pg8: http://www.pprime.fr/sites/default/files/pictures/pages-individuelles/D2/germain/EPJP2013.pdf

Now there is also the reverse of this which if a dielectric is spun between a uniform magnetic field a +/- charge is built on the disc (linear polarization).

references:
On the Electric Effect of Rotating a Magnetic Insulator in a Magnetic Field, 1913
https://archive.org/details/philtrans08602085

Reverse W.C. Roetgens Experiment: Electrodynamics, Academic Press, 1955

This leads to more questions though.

We have an electrostatic generator which has a high voltage (large E-field) but low current (limited B-field).

Then a homopolar generator with high current (large B-field) but low voltage (limited E-field).

Is there a missing "Electropolar" generator which allows the B and E field to be balanced?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 12, 2014, 09:26:16 PM
     Does a conductor moving through a uniform magnetic field develop voltage between the ends of the conductor?  In a unipolar generator you can spin the magnets along with the disk.  What I believe is happening is that  the magnetic field aligns the electrons.   This counteracts the coulomb force trying to disperse the electrons.   The electrons on the inner part of the disk experience less change of position than the electrons on the periphery.   This creates a negative charged pole on the inner parts of the disk.  As you move to the periphery of the disk the electrons are moving and residing in that space for less time.  Entropy takes over and electrons move from the higher state of order to the lower state of order.   I would like to build one of these with an inner ring and an outer ring seperated by an insulator to prove this.

Sparks:

You are posing an interesting question but you are not posing the question properly.  You are not taking into account the direction of of the magnetic field and the orientation and direction of the conductor.  When it comes to magnetic fields, everything has to take direction into account.  Note that this has already been mentioned several times on this thread.  The implications are as follows:  That means that you have to start at square one, and learn the basics before you can seriously discuss and experiment with magnetic fields.  I have to assume that many people read your posting had the same issue and it did not occur to them either.  Some of those people have probably been discussing magnetic fields and magnetic interactions for years.

This is an opportunity for some of you to "hit the reset button" and discard all of your mostly incorrect preconceptions, misconceptions,  and superstitions about magnetic fields.  You can reread this thread and spend a week or two hunting around online for basic and intermediate course material on magnetic fields and pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and educate yourselves.  It's all there for free.  In my opinion this is the real way to do it.  When you are "spoon fed" information  by passively reading it simply doesn't stick.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 12, 2014, 09:38:11 PM
Cangas:

I read your posting, and you repeated the point that I took issue with:

<<<
My post blatantly stated that FIELD LINES may or may not be real, and cannot be proved to either exist or to not exist per se.
>>>

But you have no evidence that they exist.  Anything "cannot be proved to either exist or not exist."  You are stating that anything is possible.  That is a hollow argument that goes nowhere.  It's like QEG fans saying that people have to "prove that the clainm does not work" when nobody has proved the claim does work.  The burden of proof is on Fix the Worldd and the QEG replicators to prove that it DOES work.  This is an old argument that has been around forever on the forums.  People have to prove that things actually work or that things actually exist.  Without that throught process, then things degenerate into a useless free-for-all.  Again, you can look at the example of the QEG.  Getting energy from the atmosphwere with an antenna, spark gaps, special separaate LC resonator, mechanical resonance with the core, 400 Hz, you must have good psychiological vibrations, it just goes on and on and it's just an exercise in futility and nonsense.

So I am NOT trying to be disagreeable, I am just making a firm point.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 12, 2014, 09:59:09 PM
TK:

<<<
But that is in fact _exactly_ what is happening. Where do the electrons come from in the cathode ray? THEY COME OUT OF THE WIRE that connects the cathode to the rest of the circuit. They are pushed through the wire by voltage... that is, the electric field, that comes from _individual unit charges_ pushing each other apart. That is what voltage IS !!!
>>>

We are going to have to agree to disagree.  The electric field does _not_ come from individual unit charges pushing against each other when it comes from a source of induced EMF.  The individual electric charges are being pushed around by an external electric field.  The source of the energy is the EMF field and the charges are just the "agents" of the field.  Again, I am talking about electromotive force here.  The power grid is all EMF-based.

Here is a thought experiment:  You have a transformer secondary driving a load resistor.  There are three setups.  The first setup has the output of the secondary at 10 volts RMS driving a 10-ohm resistor.  The second setup has a secondary output of 100 VRMS driving a 100-ohm resistor.  The third setup has a secondary output of 1000 VRMS driving a 1000-ohm resistor.

So, the secondary wire and the resistor are neutral with no net charge.  In all three cases the current is one amp RMS.  Is there any difference in the electron density between the three setups because of charges pushing against each other?  The answer is no, if you put a bunch of high-end current probes at multiple places on each setup they would all give you exactly the same current waveform.  If you could measure the free electron density in the metal it would be the same in all three cases.  Electrons are not "pushing against each other to make the current flow."  Granted, in each setup there is a "sea" of valence electrons "jumping around."  The electrons in the high-voltage setup are not jumping around at any higher energy levels relative to their nuclei as compared to what is happening in the low-voltage setup.  But they are at a higher relative potential energy due to the fact that they are at the "tips" of the EMF field inside the long coil of wire.

Now of course the EMF is happening inside the transformer, so what about the interconnect wires?  The conductive wire by definition prevents the existence of an electric field inside the wire.  But the fact that there is a low finite resistance in the wires means that there is a low level of EMF inside the wires also.  It's all in "harmony" - the coil, the interconnect wires, and the load resistor - they all have the "correct" amount of EMF/electric field strength so that the current flow is the same everywhere.  In that sense the electrons are not pushing against each other.  The EMF is everywhere in the circuit at just the "correct" level so that all is the electrons flow at the same rate.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 12, 2014, 10:10:42 PM
Another thought experiment:  What if the three coils are not connected to their load resistors?  One more time, let's ignore any electron flow due to parasitic capacitance.  Let's assume that you can observe the three coils in any manner without having to worry about the high voltage.  Let's assume that you are simply not looking at the voltage.  Will the three coils look any different from one another when you examine them in other ways?  I say that they won't, they will all look the same.

And just a reminder, all of this discussion is based on voltage induction, EMF.  I am not considering static electricity.  For static electricity, electron density does come into play.   I agree that in both cases you can measure voltage and the units are the same, it's the same voltage.  But there are fundamental differences with respect to the generation of EMF voltage and static-induced voltage.

Note that a capacitor bridges these two things.  An isolated capacitor has charged plates and that is an example of static electricity in action.  But when you connect a resistor across the capacitor, then I think that you can look at what happens in two ways that are mutually compatible.  You can say you have charges at high density pushing against each other and the charge repulsion will push the charges right through the resistor. Or you can say that you are back to EMF pushing current through the resistor because there is a strong electric field between the capacitor plates that also travels through the resistor.  When you connect a resistor across the capacitor plates, the electric field pushes the electrons through the resistor.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: mondrasek on October 12, 2014, 10:59:50 PM
To summarize what I have come to understand from this discussion regarding an EF:  Voltage is a concentration of charge.  And since the negative unit charge carrier is the (free) electron, that means that Voltage is the result of a concentration of electrons.

Electrons are all the same (negative) charge and so want to repel each other.  So Voltage is very much like "pressure" as used in the mechanical analogy.  IE when you have a group of electrons that are freely spaced so as not to be too close to each other they do not repel each other very much and so there is very little or no Voltage.  But if those electrons are forced closer together their same charge fields are repelling each other.  The repulsive "force" between all of those electrons is Voltage.  And the "compressed" field of electrons are very much looking for a route to relieve the "pressure" that they are under.  And so if given the chance to return to an area of lower electron density (lower charge potential) they will go there.  And the closer they are together, the higher the Voltage, and the higher the Pressure, and therefor with more "gusto" they will go to that lower potential.

Can the word "gusto" above be replaced with the word "Energy?"

This explains to me how static electricity works.  For instance, on the collector of a VDG there is created a very large group of extra free electrons.  And so the surface of the collector also has a high Voltage.  But when you give that very large electron source on the collector a place to go where there is a lesser concentration of electrons (allow it to spark to somewhere, ie. ground out) all of those extra electrons will "jump" to that place of lower electron concentration under a high Voltage (pressure).  However, the group of electrons in the static electricity filed (on the collector of the VDG) have absolutely no backup electrons to flow as quickly and with so much Voltage (pressure) after that initial jump.  And so there is very little CURRENT (flow rate of the electrons) behind that discharge.

Okay?

M.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 12, 2014, 11:41:59 PM
TK:

<<<
But that is in fact _exactly_ what is happening. Where do the electrons come from in the cathode ray? THEY COME OUT OF THE WIRE that connects the cathode to the rest of the circuit. They are pushed through the wire by voltage... that is, the electric field, that comes from _individual unit charges_ pushing each other apart. That is what voltage IS !!!
>>>



I had come to post just a quick pic of the coil and rotor, as Im looking for the proper hardware to mount to a pvc board base. And I read the statement above first and it has me reiterating my earlier post.....

In my mind, if the electron is the source of magnetic field effects, thinking on the lines of if the deflection coils in a cathode ray tube can attract or deflect an electron, then likewise the electrons in the beam must be a source of magnetic field distortion and orientaion, not just magnetic like iron where either pole N or S only pulls on them, so they must be so called magnets themselves.  Now when we read the quote above and take heed that it is true, then I have to say that electrons have a positive and negative side to them.  But these are not magnets as we know. They must be sort of like a cross section slice of say fine copper wire and the wire has DC current flowing through it.  So if we visualize the slice, say slice is as long as the width of the wire, for visualization, the field spins around the electron, and one flat side of the slice is positive and the other negative at all times.

So when we apply a dc source to the wire ends, the electrons in a straight piece of wire flow in one direction and the fields around the wire are also in the same orientation, then theoretically, I must conclude that the moving electrons in the wire are oriented + side facing the - source wire end, and the - side of the moving electron is facing the  + source end of the wire, therefore the magnetic orientation of each electrically affected electron in the wire are all the same. And that magnetic orientation can be reversed by switching the dc source on the wire in opposite polarity. ;)

And it is possible that the electrons that dont move in the wire can also be finally moved from their strongholds by applying more voltage/charge at the source, disrupting their 'atomic' magnetic hold to their copper atom counterparts and that disruption in the electrons field could break it loose from the atom and become mobile, till it finds an empty seat with another atom that is missing and electron, if the source charge effects allow it to do so at the time.

So this is what I am adding to this thread as part of the discussion. To me, it doesnt sound far fetched really.   And if it is so, what experiments could possibly prove it?  Possibly measuring the field around a DC arc, showing that the electron passing through space has correct magnetic field orientation. But if you put a mag close to the side of the arc, do the N and S of the magnet both produce pull on the arc? ;)

And possibly knowing that electrons have a positive and negative side to them, can that help us in any way? 

Just some things to think about.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 12, 2014, 11:50:54 PM
pic was huge, so deleted it.  Hadnt posted a pic from this camera in a while, forgot to shrink.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 12, 2014, 11:54:54 PM
deleted pic. was stretching screen even though I shrunk it.  :'(   Maybe gotta take a new one due to remanence in the server from first posting it large.


Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 13, 2014, 12:20:57 AM
I deleted the huge pic from the post on the last page, shrunk it, reposted above and the page is still stretched.
Ill try renaming it.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 13, 2014, 01:03:01 AM
I deleted the huge pic from the post on the last page, shrunk it, reposted above and the page is still stretched.
Ill try renaming it.

Mags

That is a good idea, also, dump your internet cache which helps me most of the time something like this happens.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 13, 2014, 06:02:31 AM
Had some distractions, friends came over, and spent some time with the pic issue on my shop laptop.

Anyway, finished, but no testing tonight.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on October 13, 2014, 04:52:26 PM
You always do good work
Is it a bifilar winding
keep us updated
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on October 13, 2014, 08:15:47 PM
TK:

I have been digesting the second half of this thread recently in small chunks.  I finally got around to looking at the links you provided and now I am unsure about the charge density and voltage issue.  Honestly when I start looking at all of the formulas with the "del" operator I know that I would have to do a lot of work to revert back and relearn stuff all the way back to all of those electromagnetics courses that I took way back when.  Since I have been in "lite" mode for quite some time there is no fire in the belly to do that anymore.  Like I stated already, I am aware of my technical limitations and just as importantly I am aware of my limited desire for investing work and time and engaging in stuff like this.

So I am going to defer to your expertize and throw in the towel on this thread.  The stuff that I stated in this first half of this thread is sound but I am not going to take it any further.  It's actually a "liberating experience" in a way.  I will give you an example from my hardware roots.  I remember agonizing over the stupid original PC card bus because I designed cards for that bus.  It eventually was called the "ISA" bus.  If I recall correctly there was this stupid signal on that bus called "AEN" (address enable.)  Some manufacturers of PCs did not drive that signal the way others did.  Part of the reason was that there was no "true" standard.  So you had to put an old-fashioned jumper on your card in case the customer was using NEC PCs because NEC (I think) were the "bad guys" that drove the AEN signal in a non-standard way and there were a lot of NEC PCs in the market at that time.  Agonizing, annoying crap.

Then I retired from all of that and moved on.  Then the PCI bus came out and it was a hell of a lot faster.  I could not give a rat's ass about the details for how the PCI bus worked.  I never even bothered to read much about the guts of how it worked and I absolutely never looked at the signal descriptions for that bus.  It was liberating, the only thing I had to know was that you plugged a card into a PCI bus slot and it was faster.  Engineers still had agonizing issues about plug-and-play (plug-and-pray) and making jumper-free cards that booted up in the PC without any addressing conflicts.  I couldn't care less.

So I made some good points in the beginning of the thread and will move on.  And I see once more, that more recently the thread is being "polluted" with myths and misconceptions and superstitions.  It's frustrating but who really cares in the "big picture" overall scheme of things.  What difference does it really make?

As they say in sales, "just walk away."

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 13, 2014, 08:54:53 PM
Had some distractions, friends came over, and spent some time with the pic issue on my shop laptop.

Anyway, finished, but no testing tonight.

Mags

It's beautiful! But will it spin? I am predicting it will not, but if you can get it to, I will join you in  jumping for joy. After all, I also predicted it should be impossible to spin a sphere magnet on its true magnetic axis by applying external pulses from a coil ... and then I went ahead and did it anyway.

You could easily make it spin, though, by rotating the toroid 90 degrees out of the plane of the rotor, and then pulsing the coils at the right times to make an Orbo-effect PM. As we discussed earlier. It would really look cool even though it wouldn't be something entirely new.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 13, 2014, 09:01:21 PM
TK:

I have been digesting the second half of this thread recently in small chunks.  I finally got around to looking at the links you provided and now I am unsure about the charge density and voltage issue.  Honestly when I start looking at all of the formulas with the "del" operator I know that I would have to do a lot of work to revert back and relearn stuff all the way back to all of those electromagnetics courses that I took way back when.  Since I have been in "lite" mode for quite some time there is no fire in the belly to do that anymore.  Like I stated already, I am aware of my technical limitations and just as importantly I am aware of my limited desire for investing work and time and engaging in stuff like this.

So I am going to defer to your expertize and throw in the towel on this thread.  The stuff that I stated in this first half of this thread is sound but I am not going to take it any further.  It's actually a "liberating experience" in a way.  I will give you an example from my hardware roots.  I remember agonizing over the stupid original PC card bus because I designed cards for that bus.  It eventually was called the "ISA" bus.  If I recall correctly there was this stupid signal on that bus called "AEN" (address enable.)  Some manufacturers of PCs did not drive that signal the way others did.  Part of the reason was that there was no "true" standard.  So you had to put an old-fashioned jumper on your card in case the customer was using NEC PCs because NEC (I think) were the "bad guys" that drove the AEN signal in a non-standard way and there were a lot of NEC PCs in the market at that time.  Agonizing, annoying crap.

Then I retired from all of that and moved on.  Then the PCI bus came out and it was a hell of a lot faster.  I could not give a rat's ass about the details for how the PCI bus worked.  I never even bothered to read much about the guts of how it worked and I absolutely never looked at the signal descriptions for that bus.  It was liberating, the only thing I had to know was that you plugged a card into a PCI bus slot and it was faster.  Engineers still had agonizing issues about plug-and-play (plug-and-pray) and making jumper-free cards that booted up in the PC without any addressing conflicts.  I couldn't care less.

So I made some good points in the beginning of the thread and will move on.  And I see once more, that more recently the thread is being "polluted" with myths and misconceptions and superstitions.  It's frustrating but who really cares in the "big picture" overall scheme of things.  What difference does it really make?

As they say in sales, "just walk away."

MileHigh

MH, you are doing good. The fact that we can discuss these things without descending into stupid insults, Jane you ignorant slut, and arguments ad hominem abusive (can't spell for zits so you must be a lousy nuclear physicist) should be a model for others. We each have opinions and each know facts and we each have experience, some shared some not, and we can each cite references to support our positions. Eventually we reach a synthesis that works, even if we still might not have perfect agreement between our mental models of this ultimately mysterious phenomenon of electromagnetism. And I can see .99 shaking his head with much amusement.

And if you still don't agree with me, let's step outside in back and settle this like men.
 ;)

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 14, 2014, 05:53:50 AM
It's beautiful! But will it spin? I am predicting it will not, but if you can get it to, I will join you in  jumping for joy. After all, I also predicted it should be impossible to spin a sphere magnet on its true magnetic axis by applying external pulses from a coil ... and then I went ahead and did it anyway.

You could easily make it spin, though, by rotating the toroid 90 degrees out of the plane of the rotor, and then pulsing the coils at the right times to make an Orbo-effect PM. As we discussed earlier. It would really look cool even though it wouldn't be something entirely new.

Well, so far, I havnt gotten even a tiny movement from this thing.  It was a couple years ago. When I didnt get constant run results, I put it aside.  Some of it is coming back to me, maybe Ill figure it out.

So today I made a new rotor with a bearing that I had removed the grease to spin easy. The bearing I put into the white rotor didnt let the rotor spin very freely. The bearings that were originally in that rotor ar in another project that I dont want to take apart. So I made the new rotor. Only tried with 2 mags so far, no go. Hitting the coil with 170v from a 470mf cap. nada.  I dont get it. I dont remember if I used higher voltage on it back then or not.

So after the new rotor didnt move with just 2 mags, I figure adding more mags just makes the rotor heavier and any additional force on the rotor because of more mags would be negligible.

Then I decided to go very basic.  1  26awg vertical wire and 1 mag on the rotor. 170v pulse moves the rotor, just a bit. Vid getting ready to upload. Might take a bit. Will post when its done.

Anyway, Will see if I have any old vids on the rotor moving like I stated.  I hope I remember what I was doing back then.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 14, 2014, 06:00:56 AM
Pretty pretty. You could also try the rotor with the magnet poles vertical instead of radial. That's how my Marinov Slab works. I think the toroidal winding (without projecting pole pieces like the QEG) is keeping the field within the core mostly, and also your system seems symmetrical, it's hard to see what unbalanced force could be expected to move the rotor. The advantage of using vertical magnets is that both poles come into play, whereas with radial magnets you only use one pole of the magnet in most designs.

It's important that you did the experiment with the vertical wire only. This shows that even the field from a single "turn" can cause stuff to move around, when the orientations are right and current strength is ample.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 14, 2014, 06:31:44 AM

Anyhow, here's the small homopolar motor I promised. What is making it turn? What is being pushed against, and how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s


Cureent flowing in the shaft is creating magnetic field which is reacting with magnetic field produced by permanent magnet. 

Shaft is rotating only because of difference in moment of force (torque) developed by magnet having larger diameter and the reactive torque experienced by central shaft having lesser diameter.  (action and reaction forces will be the same)

If you use magnets having same diameter as that of central shaft, will it rotate?

In such cases the input power will be huge (3V, 6Amps = 18 watts) whereas output power will be negligible. It may not even be 1 Watt.


Agree or disagree?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 14, 2014, 06:35:42 AM
Due to the rickity slap together of the 1 wire stator, we get to see other things, things that would not have been noticed if all had been made 'the right way' lol

Should be uploaded in about 25min, then processing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTa7j6qhWLY&feature=youtu.be

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 14, 2014, 07:18:31 AM
So after watching the vid, in the pic below, if we made a little framework to hold the 4 magnets and the whole thing were able to spin around the wire, using the wire as the axle, would the magnets spin around the wire?

With enough current flowing in the wire of course. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Jimboot on October 14, 2014, 10:10:46 AM
Kind of what I was thinking. A cylinder with mags on the inside staggered in a spiral pattern with the wire through the middle.
I reckon even I could build that. Thanks for the vid. Reminds of what dollard talks about in some aspects.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 01:03:13 AM
Today on my lunch hour(my shop 2 blocks away from work) I tried some other orientations of the magnet with the 1 wire stator.

The first experiment, I had the long thin magnet standing upright like shown in my last vid, but no pole facing the wire.

The magnet didnt move when centered with the wire, but when offset to the left or right of the wire, the mag pushes away from the wire, but one direction has a stronger push than the other. ok.

Then I tried just standing the thin magnet(about 5/8inx1/8inx1/16in) on a flat surface and setting the toroid coil around it to see if the coil would move the mag or knock it over. I hada very hard time getting the magnet to stand on its 1/8 x 1/16 end, even though it is a flat end.  I was thinking, hmm, maybe having just the one terminal of the cap at 170v was having some affect on the mag by 1 wire.  So I disconnected the coil and still the same thing. Then I remembered the bench has drywall screws and are probably pulling the magnet. So I went to a particle board table on a fold out table stand(plastic and aluminum.  Tried to stand the mag upright. Couldnt do it. ??? ??? ??? ???

So I got out some 3/4 x 1/8 disk mags that can be had from Ace hardware. Got bunches of them around.

Guess what??  I could get it to stand up sometimes, but it kept turning to align with earth N and S poles. :o :o :o   Im talking no hung from a string, no needle bearing, magnet on particle board surface.   

This is surprising. I took my magnet to work. The same effect anywhere in the shop. Im at home now and it happens here also.

Ive been playing with mags for a long time, never had I encountered this. The earths field right now is super strong. You can feel the pressure of the magnet want to spin when aiming it east or west.   This is very similar to having some magnets on the same table you are working on and having them 4 to say 6 inches away from another mag on the table. Maybe closer.


I know there are some of you out there that have assortments of mags. Could you please test this for yourself and report back no matter whet the results are. So far I get the same result within a 5mi radius.

Just to show myself Im not nuts, I just checked it right here right now and still some stupid strong magnetic field is going on.

If anyone has a mechanical compass, does it react to N quicker than it ever did before?  Dont have one, just an idea. Or try a mag on a long thread and see how fast it turns N

Like ive hung a mag from a thread and it slowly would go N even teetering before settling. This thing is on a table, on edge and pulling like nothing Ive seen before in reference to earths field. Ever. ;) ;) ;) ;)

Im in south FL, kinda equitorial, so results may vary depending on location.

Mags
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 01:51:51 AM
Short n simple.  Like I said, please test for yourselves.  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gOO7OHHeMM&feature=youtu.be

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 02:11:40 AM
Just tried 5 of those 5/8in disks stacked and still turns with force of having a strong mag nearby. Tried a 3/8 x 1/8, turns strong.   

I spend 2 min trying to get the thin mags to stand on end with the utmost frustration.  Ive stacked pool balls 3 high, this thing was beating me at lunch time.  It wasnt till I went with the 5/8 disk, thinking it should be easier to stand on end than a nickle. Spent time eliminating possible causes.  Then it just spun and did a tiny wiggle and faced N.

What would be the effects of the earths field getting this strong or stronger? ???

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 04:07:40 AM
Just tried it on my kitchen counter. Bathroom sink.  Have a half inch pvc board an went outside to try in in the middle of the street, in the parking lot and on the sidewalk.

The same each time. When I went out, a couple of neighbors were walking their dogs and I showed them and explained what I believe is going on. They may be weirded out by me now. lol  dont care.

But I see over 100 reads already, but no test replies.  Hmm.  Am I nuts and this is the way things are and always have been with the earths mag field and Im just not seeing it till now????? ::)   Na, couldnt be. 

Had a thought while writing that last sentence.  I just tried to roll the mag in line with N and S. Keeps falling over, no roll. If I roll it E and W with the mag naturally aligned with N, it rolls. Aligned with S, it falls over. Every time.

Just pinched myself. it hurted.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 04:24:25 AM
http://www.geomagnetism.org/?p=128

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield_2.html

Just looked up some stuff. No articles on increased earth field, but some are saying it is fading.

Not by my understanding.  Im going to call a relative about 150mi N of me and send them a mag to try.    Im dying to know. So this is the only way I will find out for sure I suppose.

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on October 15, 2014, 05:56:53 AM
Hi Magluvin,

Guess we can rule out poltergeists :) , I tried the experiment and got the same results, live near NY. I tried on different surfaces and to make sure there was nothing in the house went outside with a flat glass casserole bowl (low friction) and it also aligned N/S. I Stacked two 1/4" wide disc magnets together and they also turned without falling over. I tried a thin square magnet but didn't get it to turn.

This map shows magnetic anomalies in your area there is a kml file for Google Earth.

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/magnetic/

Thanks for sharing your experiments.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 06:05:25 AM
Hi Magluvin,

Guess we can rule out poltergeists :) , I tried the experiment and got the same results, live near NY. I tried on different surfaces and to make sure there was nothing in the house went outside with a flat glass casserole bowl (low friction) and it also aligned N/S. I Stacked two 1/4" wide disc magnets together and they also turned without falling over. I tried a thin square magnet but didn't get it to turn.

This map shows magnetic anomalies in your area there is a kml file for Google Earth.

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/magnetic/ (http://mrdata.usgs.gov/magnetic/)

Thanks for sharing your experiments.

Thank you for that Dream.  ;D    Whew, I have been pulling my hair out waiting for a replication.  ;)

So what do you think?  Has it always been this way, or do you find it very abnormal?

Thanks again, really. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 15, 2014, 02:23:57 PM
A great thread,but still very vague on what a magnetic field really is ???
What has no mass but can exert a force other than photons?,or do magnetic fields have photon's?- I see no light emission from a magnet.Or do magnetic fields have mass- i think not.

Here we have an invisable force made from what?.
If a magnetic field has mass,then we have a looped system,where mass is ejected from one end(known as north) and drawn back in the other end(known as south)-Is this a self running device?.

What is the maximum rate of magnetic ecceleration? If a magnet was traveling at light speed through space,with the north pole leading,would another magnet traveling an inch behind it of the same size,and also with the north pole leading,catch the first magnet. Would it travel faster than the speed of light to latch onto the first magnet?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 15, 2014, 03:49:01 PM
It is also interesting that a PM can produce far more electrical power than it took to make it in the first place-when used in a generator. The PM is a device that is charged up once,and last's for decades. I once seen a video(will try and find it again)where a guy magnetised 1000 3 inch nail's that held up more weight(steel plate) than the small PM he used to magnetise the nails in the first place. He then showed that there was still the same amount of pull force(magnetic field strength) in the PM he used to magnetise the nails as there was when he started the experiment.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 07:00:19 PM
Hey Tin.

Have you tried the magnet on the table test I described in my first post on this page?   Im surprised not more have tried and commented yet, other than Dreamthinkbuild, and he confirmed my findings.  Very surprised.  What, is it a big secret that we should not be talking about??

Good to see ya around ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Grumage on October 15, 2014, 08:35:29 PM
Hey Tin.

Have you tried the magnet on the table test I described in my first post on this page?   Im surprised not more have tried and commented yet, other than Dreamthinkbuild, and he confirmed my findings.  Very surprised.  What, is it a big secret that we should not be talking about??

Good to see ya around ;)

Mags

Dear Mag's.

I noticed the very same thing a few weeks back !!  Smiley

Video proof !!??           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkJz-ZUDb4

Cheers Grum.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 15, 2014, 09:25:05 PM
Sure, Mags, it's pretty much always been that way, and now that we are playing with stronger magnets we just notice it more. I have some N56 discs I just got a week or so ago and they do the same thing. Even electromagnets suspended on good pivots will do it.
I first noticed this strong effect of the Earth's field a few years ago when letting flat magnets slide down smooth aluminum or copper ramps. Depending on the orientation of the ramp wrt the Earth's field, the sliding magnet will either jump off the ramp, or slide smoothly, depending on which pole is facing the ramp.

I found this video that I thought you might be interested in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIf9iPskgJs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIf9iPskgJs)

ETA: I'll add that if you are playing with magnets on a surface, like a tabletop, a tiny little vibration can often help get things moving. Like sounds in the room making the tabletop resonate. This frees up the "sticktion" and lets the magnet rotate to align with whatever.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 15, 2014, 09:37:41 PM
A great thread,but still very vague on what a magnetic field really is ???
It's a map of how a particular kind of test particle will move, at any particular place in space. I know that's not a very satisfactory answer. You could think of it as an actual warpage of space, like gravity, but only acting not on mass but on charge. What causes the warpage? For EM, it is charge. For gravity, it is mass. Charge and mass/energy are fundamental, conserved quantities. Explain them, and you have explained just about every mystery in physics.
Quote
What has no mass but can exert a force other than photons?,or do magnetic fields have photon's?- I see no light emission from a magnet.Or do magnetic fields have mass- i think not.
Magnetic fields can store momentum. This is almost as good as having mass, when it comes to moving other stuff around by interacting with it. Moving, changing, accelerating back and forth magnetic fields do produce, somehow, photons. They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light" and it is more convenient to treat them as waves: radio waves for example. Whatever is making the field oscillate is putting in the energy that is radiated outward as photons of the RF. Sounds like a great movie, dunnit? Photons of the RF....
Quote
Here we have an invisable force made from what?.
Angels. Or little arrows in a 3-d field simulator.  ;)
Quote
If a magnetic field has mass,then we have a looped system,where mass is ejected from one end(known as north) and drawn back in the other end(known as south)-Is this a self running device?.
But they don't, and the field doesn't do that, and nothing is flowing along a field line unless you put it there (like plasma, etc.).
Quote

What is the maximum rate of magnetic ecceleration? If a magnet was traveling at light speed through space,with the north pole leading,would another magnet traveling an inch behind it of the same size,and also with the north pole leading,catch the first magnet. Would it travel faster than the speed of light to latch onto the first magnet?
Now you are asking questions that are above my pay grade. I will have to defer to TA on that one.
 8)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 16, 2014, 12:16:15 AM
Dear Mag's.

I noticed the very same thing a few weeks back !!  Smiley

Video proof !!??           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkJz-ZUDb4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkJz-ZUDb4)

Cheers Grum.

Also posted at OUR

Hey Grum

Thanks for showing.  Ill check the vid when I get home. Shop laptop is acting up with vids and such.

Tk says its always been this way..   He also said that the more powerful mags these days are the reason why.

Well, that disk and a stack of them are from about 10 years ago and they are not the strongest puppys I own over that period. Ace hardware pack.

Back then I was setting them up on end like that many times without this issue. In fact I clearly remember thinking how weak the earths field was as I would have to hang the mag from a thread then to have it go back and forth  slowly till finally resting N n S.   I tried a piece of 42 awg wire taped to the edge yesterday and it definitely turns like there is a local source, or, the earths field is stronger, not like I witnessed back then. Ive never had to recheck other tables, out on the sidewalk, in the middle of a street, the kitchen counter, the bathroom vanity just to have some solid verification. Ive had issues with screws or metal framework under a table top and eliminated them and would have to say, never was there an effect like this that was 'too' noticeable to ignore. Was thinking all last night, wow, this is strong enough to offset things if your a magnet motor experimenter.

Anyway, so far, Dreamthinkbuild verified it in NY, and now you.   Now I want to see what others like Lasersaber and Oldscientist, some that would fully see a possible difference as compared to just some years ago due to their vast experience with mags.

Thanks Grum.  (http://www.overunityresearch.com/Smileys/Alive/wink.gif)

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on October 16, 2014, 03:22:15 AM
Mags:

Mine do it here too.  (Bowling Green, KY)  I have about 100 1/4" dia. x .125 thick neo mags  (N-35) and tried one on it's edge and it spun around quickly.  I stuck 2 of them together it happened with even more gusto.  I have never noticed this before but, I have to say I have never tried this.  I read TK's explanation and he is most probably correct but, I have to say it seems a bit spooky to me to see it happen right here on my bench.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 16, 2014, 05:06:34 AM
Mags:

Mine do it here too.  (Bowling Green, KY)  I have about 100 1/4" dia. x .125 thick neo mags  (N-35) and tried one on it's edge and it spun around quickly.  I stuck 2 of them together it happened with even more gusto.  I have never noticed this before but, I have to say I have never tried this.  I read TK's explanation and he is most probably correct but, I have to say it seems a bit spooky to me to see it happen right here on my bench.

Bill

Hey Bill

Thanks for testing.  Spooky is a good word for it. ;)   looked up YT for neo magnet compass and there are a few in the last couple years with some decent movement. But not any old vids of it.

Where it really was hitting me hard with the whole thing was the fact that the disk kept falling over if it didnt turn. Like I said, these disks are nearly 10 years old. And back then I did play with them on edge while manipulating them from a distance or from under the table with another mag.  This what we are seeing here is not the same experience at all.  This to me was disturbing and delightful with sprinkles and some what the heck sauce. Like back when I was fiddling with the whipmag, taking the seals off of the bearings, cleaning them out real good and using those N42 diametrics, I never seen the likes of this. I had some bearings that would not spin well at all with the mag right on top of it, then others that were a dream spinner with the mag, due to some were less attractive to the mag thus less tensions there. 

They were not as good as the bearings I used graphite in, but better than standing this disk on edge on particle board. Maybe it would be a good idea to put one of those stators back together and see if it tuns N/S like what we are seeing here today.  That was about 6 years ago. Still have those mags, bearings and housing tubes. Back then we were concerned with hardware, bearings magnetic effects on the whipmag system as a whole. So if a stator was pulling toward  something, like a screw in the table, metal framework around the device, what ever, then this earth field issue would have been a big issue back then.

Thanks for the test Bill.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 16, 2014, 05:06:55 AM
Sure, and I'm doing it here in South Texas with the n56 discs. If you could mount the magnet in a gimbal you could also see the dip of the field in your area. Take the mounted magnet on a trip and watch the dip angle change as you travel north and south. The closer to the equator you are, the more horizontal (no dip) the field, and so it should be easier to stand the disk on edge and it should orient strongly. In the far North or South, it should be difficult even to stand the magnet on edge, because it will want to align with the dip of the earth's field which gets larger as you approach the pole.

ETA: Let us please not forget that lots of people still are navigating using magnetic compasses to find their way to their destination. And that many different scientific and academic agencies are monitoring the Earth's field continuously.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 16, 2014, 05:30:15 AM
Also posted at OUR

Hey Grum

Thanks for showing.  Ill check the vid when I get home. Shop laptop is acting up with vids and such.

Tk says its always been this way..   He also said that the more powerful mags these days are the reason why.

Well, that disk and a stack of them are from about 10 years ago and they are not the strongest puppys I own over that period. Ace hardware pack.

Back then I was setting them up on end like that many times without this issue. In fact I clearly remember thinking how weak the earths field was as I would have to hang the mag from a thread then to have it go back and forth  slowly till finally resting N n S.   I tried a piece of 42 awg wire taped to the edge yesterday and it definitely turns like there is a local source, or, the earths field is stronger, not like I witnessed back then. Ive never had to recheck other tables, out on the sidewalk, in the middle of a street, the kitchen counter, the bathroom vanity just to have some solid verification. Ive had issues with screws or metal framework under a table top and eliminated them and would have to say, never was there an effect like this that was 'too' noticeable to ignore. Was thinking all last night, wow, this is strong enough to offset things if your a magnet motor experimenter.

Anyway, so far, Dreamthinkbuild verified it in NY, and now you.   Now I want to see what others like Lasersaber and Oldscientist, some that would fully see a possible difference as compared to just some years ago due to their vast experience with mags.

Thanks Grum.  (http://www.overunityresearch.com/Smileys/Alive/wink.gif)

Mags
Same here in West OZ Mags-a very strong rotation on the disk magnets.Never thought it would be this strong. But i am lost as to how you think this would aid in an all magnet motor ???. What would be the difference in using the earths magnetic field as apposed to that of a PM's magnetic field?.

This actually give me an idea for free energy travel lol-will have to do a video on this one for sure.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on October 16, 2014, 07:39:43 AM
@Mag
Quote
Thanks for testing.  Spooky is a good word for it. (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif)   looked up YT
for neo magnet compass and there are a few in the last couple years with some
decent movement. But not any old vids of it.
We should remember that the concept of flying through the air was also spooky not long ago because most thought it impossible. I would agree this neo magnet compass is something new... to you, however I noticed this effect a very long time ago. Think about it, how small the compass needle is and how small and weak it's field is and how fast it tracks the Earths magnetic field. Now consider your magnet and how powerful it is in relation to a compass needle.
No offense but if were going to move forward people have to stop chasing smoke and mirrors. We must think clearly concerning what we think we see and why it is happening. Now which do you think is more likely... the Earths magnetic field just increased drastically or you just learned something new which should have been obvious?.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 16, 2014, 09:12:23 AM
It's a map of how a particular kind of test particle will move, at any particular place in space. I know that's not a very satisfactory answer. You could think of it as an actual warpage of space, like gravity, but only acting not on mass but on charge. What causes the warpage? For EM, it is charge. For gravity, it is mass. Charge and mass/energy are fundamental, conserved quantities. Explain them, and you have explained just about every mystery in physics. Magnetic fields can store momentum. This is almost as good as having mass, when it comes to moving other stuff around by interacting with it. Moving, changing, accelerating back and forth magnetic fields do produce, somehow, photons. They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light" and it is more convenient to treat them as waves: radio waves for example. Whatever is making the field oscillate is putting in the energy that is radiated outward as photons of the RF. Sounds like a great movie, dunnit? Photons of the RF.... Angels. Or little arrows in a 3-d field simulator.  ;)  But they don't, and the field doesn't do that, and nothing is flowing along a field line unless you put it there (like plasma, etc.). Now you are asking questions that are above my pay grade. I will have to defer to TA on that one.
 8)
There must be something that act's against the other something :-\. What i mean is-one magnetic field acts against the other,wether it be like poles ,or unlike poles. You just cant have nothing interacting with another nothing ::) So what dose this invisable force consist of?.

Quote:  They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light"
They are called what then?,and would a solar pannel see this low frequency/long wave length?.Wouldnt that be a hoot-throw some magnets on a solar pannel,and produce power without light :D
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 17, 2014, 02:44:51 AM
Same here in West OZ Mags-a very strong rotation on the disk magnets.Never thought it would be this strong. But i am lost as to how you think this would aid in an all magnet motor ??? . What would be the difference in using the earths magnetic field as apposed to that of a PM's magnetic field?.

This actually give me an idea for free energy travel lol-will have to do a video on this one for sure.

Never said it would help with making a magnet motor. ;)   I have played pretty heavily with mags for nearly 10 years.  When I had first seen the perendev motor, that was when I got pretty serious. Not that i believe the perendev motor worked, but the idea of it all just really took off for me.

But in all that time doing this that and the other with these neo mags, some of it on YT, tons of it just on the bench, I should have seen this then. I should have seen it 1 year ago, 2 years ago, 8 years ago.  Stood these disks on edge many times and no issues like this.

Did a test today after work.  I set up an identical disk mag on one end of pvc board, 1/8 in has very smooth surface, with masking tape on edge facing N/S. Then I put another disk on edge between the fixed mag and earth N.  8 inches away from each other was a neutral zone where the free standing mag could face E/W without falling over, turning toward the other mag or turning toward N or turning full N.  8 inches.  Im sorry but this should have come to my attention long ago. Im still in disbelief that this isnt something that is more recent of a happening. 

Anyway, 8 inches.  Thats how strong the earths field is, equal to a similar magnet 8 inches away. Like I said, Ive had many issues with nails in a table, or screws, a nearby screw driver causing a mag in a project to want to turn in the direction of that object. And also issues with nearby magnets close to projects that affected desired effects. So this should have affected many of the projects/experiments that i have done. So this strong earth field should have been a problem(noticed AND recognized) for me many times before, considering it is equal to another similar magnet 8 inches away. Thats what I meant about its affects on peoples projects/mag motors, etc.  ;D ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 17, 2014, 02:56:43 AM
@MagWe should remember that the concept of flying through the air was also spooky not long ago because most thought it impossible. I would agree this neo magnet compass is something new... to you, however I noticed this effect a very long time ago. Think about it, how small the compass needle is and how small and weak it's field is and how fast it tracks the Earths magnetic field. Now consider your magnet and how powerful it is in relation to a compass needle.
No offense but if were going to move forward people have to stop chasing smoke and mirrors. We must think clearly concerning what we think we see and why it is happening. Now which do you think is more likely... the Earths magnetic field just increased drastically or you just learned something new which should have been obvious?.
AC


"Now which do you think is more likely... the Earths magnetic field just increased drastically or you just learned something new which should have been obvious?."

Exactly. It should have been obvious before now. it should have been obvious to me, to Grum, to Bill, to Tinman. But their reactions, maybe not as strong as mine, were definitely in the 'SURPRISE' zone. And I bet that they and many many others that have played with magnets for years, other than say TK ;D , have had many chances of magnet play/experimentation to notice and recognize this over the years. These are the people I would like to find, ones that can show this from years ago, if there are any others than TK. ;)   

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 17, 2014, 05:31:59 AM
One other test I did today.  The air core toroid, when discharging the cap, produces a field through the center, as if it were wire wound in a loop instead of a toroid.  Magnet tips over one way only, unless you reverse the polarity of input.  The 1/2in x 1/8 x 1/16 will flip, just once, pulse after that nothing till you flip it over again.  Anywhere in the circle of the coil seems the same.

Odd for a toroid isnt it? ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 17, 2014, 09:16:19 AM
There must be something that act's against the other something :-\. What i mean is-one magnetic field acts against the other,wether it be like poles ,or unlike poles. You just cant have nothing interacting with another nothing ::) So what dose this invisable force consist of?.

Quote:  They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light" They are called what then?,and would a solar pannel see this low frequency/long wave length?.Wouldnt that be a hoot-throw some magnets on a solar pannel,and produce power without light :D


I think that question can be put this way : When you bring an iron piece near a magnet, it should simply induce opposite pole in the iron piece and leave it.  But why should magnet attract it with a force?


I have some more crazy questions:

Moving electrons produce magnetic field in a conductor carrying curent.  So, when you bring a repelling pole near it,  the repulsion force should act on electrons producing the magnetic field and electrons should be ejected out of the conductor.   But actually we see that repulsion force acts on mass of conductor as a whole imparting momentum on entire mass of the conductor itself. (which is the principle used in all motors)

When you subject a current carrying conductor to extreme repulsion, conductor itself will bend but electrons will not be ejected out.   Why?

Does it mean that electrons are tightly held to mass of the conductor?   If moving electrons are tightly held to the conductor, how they will move? 

And why they are called free electrons???  (when they cannot jump out of conductor subjected to repulsion?)

Can some 'genius' answer it?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on October 17, 2014, 02:56:48 PM
Newton II (and others).
I guess this file should shed some light on magnetism:

http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/534/#.VEEP0clxg0U (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/534/#.VEEP0clxg0U)

Electromagnets for attracting non-ferrous metals
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: gyulasun on October 18, 2014, 12:53:57 AM
Newton II (and others).
I guess this file should shed some light on magnetism:

http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/534/#.VEEP0clxg0U (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/534/#.VEEP0clxg0U)

Electromagnets for attracting non-ferrous metals

Hi Qwert,

Although there is not much info given on another book, perhaps you could try to search this book hinted at in this post, first by member Mk1 and then Magluvin:

http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357978/#msg357978 

When I had read Magluvin's description on that book, I though of this book you just uploaded but Magluvin wrote back then that it was not that book:

http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg358021/#msg358021 

When you have some time, please try to look for the other book. 

Thanks, Gyula
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 18, 2014, 04:09:24 AM


I have some more crazy questions:

Moving electrons produce magnetic field in a conductor carrying curent.  So, when you bring a repelling pole near it,  the repulsion force should act on electrons producing the magnetic field and electrons should be ejected out of the conductor.   But actually we see that repulsion force acts on mass of conductor as a whole imparting momentum on entire mass of the conductor itself. (which is the principle used in all motors)

When you subject a current carrying conductor to extreme repulsion, conductor itself will bend but electrons will not be ejected out.   Why?

Does it mean that electrons are tightly held to mass of the conductor?   If moving electrons are tightly held to the conductor, how they will move? 


Can some 'genius' answer it?
It is my beliefe that free electrons only become free to move when a magnetic field is present. Lets look at the homopolar generator. Only when there is a magnetic field present in the area of the spining copper disk,will the free electrons flow through that disk. I really think that the homopolar generator holds many answers we seek,but no one as of yet has tried to piece together how the magnetic field and spin of the disk are interacting with each other.

Some here will say they know exactly how a homopolar generator work's,but cannot explain what the magnetic field actually is. Sure we know how to create it,and why it it is formed,but still dont know what it is. The other thing you have to ask is this-is it the moving electrons that produce a magnetic field,or is it the magnetic field that allows the electrons to move?.The homopolar generator says the latter is true-you need a magnetic field in order to get the free electrons to flow,and the stronger that field,the more electrons will flow.The homopolare generator produces a low voltage,but very high current,and as current is carried by electrons,then the higher the current MUST mean that more electrons are flowing.

Some things that stand out in a homopolar generator that may hold the answers are-
1-Stronger the magnetic field through the disk-the more current is produced.
2-The faster the rotation of the disk-the more current is produced.
Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed.
3-Current is produced weather the magnets are fixed or rotate with the copper disk.
4-Current isnt produced if the disk is fixed,and magnets are rotated around the disk.
5-As we have what is called the north field on one side of the disk,and the south on the other,then the disk itself must be in this neutral zone of the magnetic field they talk about-could this be why the current flow direction changes when the rotation direction changes?

Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux. So they then decided that they would use the Lorentz force law to explain it's opperation.Quote: The force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction.
Now,the magnetic flux vector thing. Problem is that the magnetic flux within the disk is this neutral field(half north/half south).Since when can a current be produced using this neutral field?.And why dose current flow change direction by only reversing the disk rotation,when the radial force would remain the same regardless of rotational direction?.

There must be a flow of something between the north and south field of a magnet,and what ever this flow is made of is what is acting apon the electrons.Lets say the flow of this mistical matter is from north to south of the magnet's,and so this flow is through the copper disc. By flipping the magnets over so as we reverse the polarity across(through)the copper disk,we reverse the flow of this misticle matter-so this would explain the reverse in current flow through the disk. But why dose the current reverse direction when we leave the magnetic polarity the same,but reverse the direction of rotation of the copper disk :-\. Well maybe(just maybe) TA's theory on magnetic spin is right-i mean it fit's right into how the homopolar generator dose what it dose.Maybe the copper disk now has this spiral magnetic field within it,and the electrons are being pumped out of the disk much the same as water is pumped out of a centrifugal water pump. And like the water pump,if we reverse the direction of the rotor,we reverse the direction of flow.Also like in the water pump,if we spin the magnets over(spin the impeller over)we also get a reverse in flow.Is this why one of Tesla's homopolar generator design's used spiral rotor's?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 18, 2014, 04:32:59 AM
It is my beliefe that free electrons only become free to move when a magnetic field is present. Lets look at the homopolar generator. Only when there is a magnetic field present in the area of the spining copper disk,will the free electrons flow through that disk. I really think that the homopolar generator holds many answers we seek,but no one as of yet has tried to piece together how the magnetic field and spin of the disk are interacting with each other.

Some here will say they know exactly how a homopolar generator work's,but cannot explain what the magnetic field actually is. Sure we know how to create it,and why it it is formed,but still dont know what it is. The other thing you have to ask is this-is it the moving electrons that produce a magnetic field,or is it the magnetic field that allows the electrons to move?.The homopolar generator says the latter is true-you need a magnetic field in order to get the free electrons to flow,and the stronger that field,the more electrons will flow.The homopolare generator produces a low voltage,but very high current,and as current is carried by electrons,then the higher the current MUST mean that more electrons are flowing.

Some things that stand out in a homopolar generator that may hold the answers are-
1-Stronger the magnetic field through the disk-the more current is produced.
2-The faster the rotation of the disk-the more current is produced.
Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed.
3-Current is produced weather the magnets are fixed or rotate with the copper disk.
4-Current isnt produced if the disk is fixed,and magnets are rotated around the disk.
5-As we have what is called the north field on one side of the disk,and the south on the other,then the disk itself must be in this neutral zone of the magnetic field they talk about-could this be why the current flow direction changes when the rotation direction changes?

Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux. So they then decided that they would use the Lorentz force law to explain it's opperation.Quote: The force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction.
Now,the magnetic flux vector thing. Problem is that the magnetic flux within the disk is this neutral field(half north/half south).Since when can a current be produced using this neutral field?.And why dose current flow change direction by only reversing the disk rotation,when the radial force would remain the same regardless of rotational direction?.

There must be a flow of something between the north and south field of a magnet,and what ever this flow is made of is what is acting apon the electrons.Lets say the flow of this mistical matter is from north to south of the magnet's,and so this flow is through the copper disc. By flipping the magnets over so as we reverse the polarity across(through)the copper disk,we reverse the flow of this misticle matter-so this would explain the reverse in current flow through the disk. But why dose the current reverse direction when we leave the magnetic polarity the same,but reverse the direction of rotation of the copper disk :-\ . Well maybe(just maybe) TA's theory on magnetic spin is right-i mean it fit's right into how the homopolar generator dose what it dose.Maybe the copper disk now has this spiral magnetic field within it,and the electrons are being pumped out of the disk much the same as water is pumped out of a centrifugal water pump. And like the water pump,if we reverse the direction of the rotor,we reverse the direction of flow.Also like in the water pump,if we spin the magnets over(spin the impeller over)we also get a reverse in flow.Is this why one of Tesla's homopolar generator design's used spiral rotor's?.

"Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux."

Actually Faraday's law of induction is the only thing that accurately explains how the homopolar generator works.  That is, if you understand how the brush connected to the outside of the rotor, and the other contact to the center of the rotor, creates a "virtual wire" across the rotor, that creates a virtual wire that is constantly moving through a magnetic field (experiencing a constant change of magnetic field as long as there is motion).  The relative motion within a magnetic field is what produces a polarized current (DC).

Liberty
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 18, 2014, 04:44:43 AM
"Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux."

Actually Faraday's law of induction is the only thing that accurately explains how the homopolar generator works.  That is, if you understand how the brush connected to the outside of the rotor, and the other contact to the center of the rotor, creates a "virtual wire" across the rotor, that creates a virtual wire that is constantly moving through a magnetic field (experiencing a constant change of magnetic field as long as there is motion).  The relative motion within a magnetic field is what produces a polarized current (DC).

Liberty
There is no change in magnetic field,nor is there a change in current direction-there for Faradays law of magnetic induction dosnt apply to the homopolar generator.Quote: Like all dynamos, the Faraday disc converts kinetic energy to electrical energy. This machine can not be analysed using Faraday's own law of electromagnetic induction. This law (in its modern form) states that an electric current is induced in a closed electrical circuit when the magnetic flux enclosed by the circuit changes. In Faraday's law, EMF is the time-derivative of flux, so a DC EMF is only possible if the magnetic flux is getting uniformly larger and larger perpetually. But in the generator, the magnetic field is constant and the disc stays in the same position, so no magnetic fluxes are growing larger and larger. So this example cannot be analyzed directly with Faraday's law.

The Lorentz force law is more easily used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law, formulated thirty years after Faraday's death, states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction. The radial movement of the electrons in the disc produces a charge separation between the center of the disc and its rim, and if the circuit is completed an electric current will be produced.
There is no wire constantly moving through the magnetic field,as both the wire and field are stationary.
 Also the twin disk homopolar generator disprove's your theory Liberty,as both brushes are at the center of the carrying shaft-there is no outer brush. Are you sure your not thinking of a homopolar motor?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 18, 2014, 04:45:37 AM
It is my beliefe that free electrons only become free to move when a magnetic field is present. Lets look at the homopolar generator. Only when there is a magnetic field present in the area of the spining copper disk,will the free electrons flow through that disk. I really think that the homopolar generator holds many answers we seek,but no one as of yet has tried to piece together how the magnetic field and spin of the disk are interacting with each other.

Some here will say they know exactly how a homopolar generator work's,but cannot explain what the magnetic field actually is. Sure we know how to create it,and why it it is formed,but still dont know what it is. The other thing you have to ask is this-is it the moving electrons that produce a magnetic field,or is it the magnetic field that allows the electrons to move?.The homopolar generator says the latter is true-you need a magnetic field in order to get the free electrons to flow,and the stronger that field,the more electrons will flow.The homopolare generator produces a low voltage,but very high current,and as current is carried by electrons,then the higher the current MUST mean that more electrons are flowing.

Some things that stand out in a homopolar generator that may hold the answers are-
1-Stronger the magnetic field through the disk-the more current is produced.
2-The faster the rotation of the disk-the more current is produced.
Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed.
3-Current is produced weather the magnets are fixed or rotate with the copper disk.
4-Current isnt produced if the disk is fixed,and magnets are rotated around the disk.
5-As we have what is called the north field on one side of the disk,and the south on the other,then the disk itself must be in this neutral zone of the magnetic field they talk about-could this be why the current flow direction changes when the rotation direction changes?

Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux. So they then decided that they would use the Lorentz force law to explain it's opperation.Quote: The force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction.
Now,the magnetic flux vector thing. Problem is that the magnetic flux within the disk is this neutral field(half north/half south).Since when can a current be produced using this neutral field?.And why dose current flow change direction by only reversing the disk rotation,when the radial force would remain the same regardless of rotational direction?.

There must be a flow of something between the north and south field of a magnet,and what ever this flow is made of is what is acting apon the electrons.Lets say the flow of this mistical matter is from north to south of the magnet's,and so this flow is through the copper disc. By flipping the magnets over so as we reverse the polarity across(through)the copper disk,we reverse the flow of this misticle matter-so this would explain the reverse in current flow through the disk. But why dose the current reverse direction when we leave the magnetic polarity the same,but reverse the direction of rotation of the copper disk :-\ . Well maybe(just maybe) TA's theory on magnetic spin is right-i mean it fit's right into how the homopolar generator dose what it dose.Maybe the copper disk now has this spiral magnetic field within it,and the electrons are being pumped out of the disk much the same as water is pumped out of a centrifugal water pump. And like the water pump,if we reverse the direction of the rotor,we reverse the direction of flow.Also like in the water pump,if we spin the magnets over(spin the impeller over)we also get a reverse in flow.Is this why one of Tesla's homopolar generator design's used spiral rotor's?.

"Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed."

Exactly. It is odd isnt it? ;D

Thats why I suggest that if the electron is the source of the magnetic field produced in the current carrying wire, then the electron must have a positive side to it and a negative side to it, in order for the electrons magnetic orientation to coincide accordingly when DC voltage is applied to the wire. The charge from the DC input causes the electrons to orient themselves  +- +- +- in the wire, therefore those affected electrons mag fields produce the same orientation around the wire. The more electrons affected by the input charge, the stronger the field around the wire due to those electrons being in the correct +- alignment and accordingly their field orientation.

Other wise, you can say it is odd and still wonder why.  ;) ;D I just came up with this the other day, as is totally plausible.  ;)

Same as moving the magnets field across the wire or copper disk. The moving magnetic field causes the electrons circular field to orient the electrons in a way that their + and - sides line up creating a charge in the wire + at one end of the wire and - at the other. And if the 2 ends of the wire have a load or are shorted, then current flows.


The wire is made up of imperfections and atoms are oriented all different ways. So the electrons magnetic fields are all a mix. So no measurable field around the wire. But if we hit that wire with say 40kv from a cap, there will be a lot of electrons lined up from one end of the wire to the other +- +- +- +-  and a huge magnetic field is produced, along with all the extra electrons in the wire introduced by the discharge..

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 18, 2014, 05:06:02 AM
There is no change in magnetic field,nor is there a change in current direction-there for Faradays law of magnetic induction dosnt apply to the homopolar generator.Quote: Like all dynamos, the Faraday disc converts kinetic energy to electrical energy. This machine can not be analysed using Faraday's own law of electromagnetic induction. This law (in its modern form) states that an electric current is induced in a closed electrical circuit when the magnetic flux enclosed by the circuit changes. In Faraday's law, EMF is the time-derivative of flux, so a DC EMF is only possible if the magnetic flux is getting uniformly larger and larger perpetually. But in the generator, the magnetic field is constant and the disc stays in the same position, so no magnetic fluxes are growing larger and larger. So this example cannot be analyzed directly with Faraday's law.

The Lorentz force law is more easily used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law, formulated thirty years after Faraday's death, states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction. The radial movement of the electrons in the disc produces a charge separation between the center of the disc and its rim, and if the circuit is completed an electric current will be produced.
There is no wire constantly moving through the magnetic field,as both the wire and field are stationary.
 Also the twin disk homopolar generator disprove's your theory Liberty,as both brushes are at the center of the carrying shaft-there is no outer brush. Are you sure your not thinking of a homopolar motor?.

In a magnet, the magnetic field is produced by many little magnets.  That is why when you pass a wire through a continuous magnetic field (surface of a magnet), it produces current flow.  The same principle in a standard generator is also working in a homopolar generator.  The homopolar generator that has a brush on the outside of the rotor and a contact on the center of the rotor, takes the shortest path, which is a straight path (virtual wire) which is the lowest resistance path.  This "virtual wire" is only present when the rotor is spun, as that is the only time when a current is produced.  The magnetic field combines with relative motion to produce current flow.  That current flow will act like a wire that passes through a magnetic field.  The reason the voltage is low is because the wire is short.  The reason the current is high, is because the conductive platter performs as a wide, flat wire.  The movement of the wire, is due to the rotation of the platter, and the moving contact on the rotor, constantly moving the position of the wire in the magnetic field.  Faster rotation produces more output current.  A stronger magnetic field will also produce a stronger current.

With the above in mind, rethink how you understand the operation of the twin disk homopolar generator.

Liberty
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 18, 2014, 05:36:25 AM
In a magnet, the magnetic field is produced by many little magnets.  That is why when you pass a wire through a continuous magnetic field (surface of a magnet), it produces current flow.  The same principle in a standard generator is also working in a homopolar generator.  The homopolar generator that has a brush on the outside of the rotor and a contact on the center of the rotor, takes the shortest path, which is a straight path (virtual wire) which is the lowest resistance path.  This "virtual wire" is only present when the rotor is spun, as that is the only time when a current is produced.  The magnetic field combines with relative motion to produce current flow.  That current flow will act like a wire that passes through a magnetic field.  The reason the voltage is low is because the wire is short.  The reason the current is high, is because the conductive platter performs as a wide, flat wire.  The movement of the wire, is due to the rotation of the platter, and the moving contact on the rotor, constantly moving the position of the wire in the magnetic field.  Faster rotation produces more output current.  A stronger magnetic field will also produce a stronger current.

With the above in mind, rethink how you understand the operation of the twin disk homopolar generator.

Liberty
Liberty
The reason you get a current flow when passing a wire through a continuous magnetic fiels is because the strength of that field cutting through the wire is growing as your wire approaches that field, and  diminishing as your wire leaves the field-AC current.The magnetic field in relation to the disk is constant and dose not change in strength-regardless of your virtual wire or not. Your virtual wire is alway in a constant(unchanging) magnetic field,regardless of where that virtual wire may be on the disk.

The twin disk HP generator has a full loop around the outer perimeter of both disk-this is the current flow conection between both disk,so there is no one contact point or virtual wire as you say. The output is then taken from the center of each disk shaft.There is also Tesla's design of a twin disk HP generator,which uses a steel belt to transfer current from one disk to the other. This also has a contact of 180* around each disk.
So you see,this virtual wire you speak of is not how the HP generator  is working,and thus the law of magnetic induction dosnt apply.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 18, 2014, 02:50:52 PM
Liberty
The reason you get a current flow when passing a wire through a continuous magnetic fiels is because the strength of that field cutting through the wire is growing as your wire approaches that field, and  diminishing as your wire leaves the field-AC current.The magnetic field in relation to the disk is constant and dose not change in strength-regardless of your virtual wire or not. Your virtual wire is alway in a constant(unchanging) magnetic field,regardless of where that virtual wire may be on the disk.

The twin disk HP generator has a full loop around the outer perimeter of both disk-this is the current flow conection between both disk,so there is no one contact point or virtual wire as you say. The output is then taken from the center of each disk shaft.There is also Tesla's design of a twin disk HP generator,which uses a steel belt to transfer current from one disk to the other. This also has a contact of 180* around each disk.
So you see,this virtual wire you speak of is not how the HP generator  is working,and thus the law of magnetic induction dosnt apply.

I would agree that a current is generated as a coil approaches a magnet and as it leaves a magnet.  (Standard generator).  Further, it is known that a wire (not a coil) passing over a continuous (unchanging) magnetic field produces a current in the wire, as long as motion is present between the wire and magnetic field.  However, in this case, you cannot use a loop of wire (coil), as the current will cancel, and there will be no output.    In the case of the magnetic field being constant in relation to the disk, the latter case is the known reason for current flow.  It is the wire (conductive path) passing through a constant magnetic field (acting as a wire) that will produce a current.  Mr. Faraday was actually correct about induction, and is the basis of operation of the Faraday (HP) generator and the standard generator.

Liberty

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 18, 2014, 03:09:58 PM

Some things that stand out in a homopolar generator that may hold the answers are-
1-Stronger the magnetic field through the disk-the more current is produced.
2-The faster the rotation of the disk-the more current is produced.
Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed.
3-Current is produced weather the magnets are fixed or rotate with the copper disk.
4-Current isnt produced if the disk is fixed,and magnets are rotated around the disk.


It may be for the reason that when you rotate the disc, the outer edge of the disc moves with higher velocity than inner edges of the disc to catch up with RPM. This may create some sort of 'gradient' or 'potential difference'  between  rim  and the centre making the electrons to flow.

In that case if you use a disc of very large diameter, it should produce a considerable gradient creating a higher voltage,  current flow depending on strength of magnetic field.
 
So, instead of using one thick disc if you use several thin discs separated and placed one above the other and rotate in a uniform perpendicular magnetic field, will it not improve the efficiency of the generator?

The explanations look  cranky,  but if you go on throwing arrows in the dark,  some arrow would reach the destination!


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 18, 2014, 03:43:07 PM
I would agree that a current is generated as a coil approaches a magnet and as it leaves a magnet.  (Standard generator).  Further, it is known that a wire (not a coil) passing over a continuous (unchanging) magnetic field produces a current in the wire, as long as motion is present between the wire and magnetic field.  However, in this case, you cannot use a loop of wire (coil), as the current will cancel, and there will be no output.    In the case of the magnetic field being constant in relation to the disk, the latter case is the known reason for current flow.  It is the wire (conductive path) passing through a constant magnetic field (acting as a wire) that will produce a current.  Mr. Faraday was actually correct about induction, and is the basis of operation of the Faraday (HP) generator and the standard generator.

Liberty
LibertyThe wire(conductive path) dosnt pass through a constant magnetic field,it remains in a constant position in relation to the magnetic field,as the brush on the outer rim never changes position-thus the line(potential wire)between the outer brush and center brush is stationary(fixed) just as the magnetic field is.There is no increase or decrease of magnetic field strength,nor is there a moving wire passing over that constant magnetic field(as the two brushes are in a fixed position)-so there is no induction taking place.In order to fully understand as to how the HPG work's,we need to know what exactly a magnetic field is. And in order to know what a magnetic field is,we need to know how the HPG work's-the two go together in understanding each other.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 18, 2014, 03:56:46 PM
It may be for the reason that when you rotate the disc, the outer edge of the disc moves with higher velocity than inner edges of the disc to catch up with RPM. This may create some sort of 'gradient' or 'potential difference'  between  rim  and the centre making the electrons to flow.

In that case if you use a disc of very large diameter, it should produce a considerable gradient creating a higher voltage,  current flow depending on strength of magnetic field.
 
So, instead of using one thick disc if you use several thin discs separated and placed one above the other and rotate in a uniform perpendicular magnetic field, will it not improve the efficiency of the generator?

The explanations look  cranky,  but if you go on throwing arrows in the dark,  some arrow would reach the destination!

I agree with Newton II's explanation and think that there is merit in the "potential difference" theory (due to the difference in velocity from inside the disk, to outside, while immersed in a magnetic field, (to separate charge, preventing the charge from shorting out in the disk like an eddy current)). And in order for current to flow, it would have to form a conductive path to allow output of this generator to a load.  This may account for the other HP generators that Tinman was referring to.  For HP generators in general, it appears that the larger, the more it produces.  But as in magnet motors that operate on the gradient method, (magnet spiral style motor) the difference (gradient) is fairly small. 

Liberty
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 18, 2014, 04:27:50 PM
LibertyThe wire(conductive path) dosnt pass through a constant magnetic field,it remains in a constant position in relation to the magnetic field,as the brush on the outer rim never changes position-thus the line(potential wire)between the outer brush and center brush is stationary(fixed) just as the magnetic field is.There is no increase or decrease of magnetic field strength,nor is there a moving wire passing over that constant magnetic field(as the two brushes are in a fixed position)-so there is no induction taking place.In order to fully understand as to how the HPG work's,we need to know what exactly a magnetic field is. And in order to know what a magnetic field is,we need to know how the HPG work's-the two go together in understanding each other.

The conductive path is constantly repositioning itself on a spinning disk (finding the path of least resistance) and is therefore in relative motion in respect to the magnetic field.  There is therefore constant movement as the conductive path is constantly repositioned on the surface of the disk while the disk is in motion, while in a constant magnetic field. 

Liberty
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 18, 2014, 08:35:27 PM
Probably one of the more interesting things about the homo polar motor is the fact that the ring magnet is able to spin with the disk and the disk still produces current. Now, is there any lenz braking happening while turning the disk with the ring magnet spinning with it while current is loaded from the disk? Is there resistance to turning the disk with the mag ring spinning with it? If there is, what is the wheel lenz braking against if the magnet spins with the disk?? If there is no lenz braking, and the faster we spin the wheel, the more current we get out without increasing drag, what does that mean to you?  One more thing. If there is lenz braking with using a disk, what can we replace the disk with to avoid it? ;)


Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 19, 2014, 01:19:22 AM
The conductive path is constantly repositioning itself on a spinning disk (finding the path of least resistance) and is therefore in relative motion in respect to the magnetic field.  There is therefore constant movement as the conductive path is constantly repositioned on the surface of the disk while the disk is in motion, while in a constant magnetic field. 

Liberty
Liberty
I really do not think that this conductive path keeps jumping back up to reposition itself. This path between brushes would remain constant-no movement. That is like saying a light beam would bend if we spun a flash light around fast enough-just not going to happen.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 19, 2014, 01:24:37 AM
Probably one of the more interesting things about the homo polar motor is the fact that the ring magnet is able to spin with the disk and the disk still produces current. Now, is there any lenz braking happening while turning the disk with the ring magnet spinning with it while current is loaded from the disk? Is there resistance to turning the disk with the mag ring spinning with it? If there is, what is the wheel lenz braking against if the magnet spins with the disk?? If there is no lenz braking, and the faster we spin the wheel, the more current we get out without increasing drag, what does that mean to you?  One more thing. If there is lenz braking with using a disk, what can we replace the disk with to avoid it? ;)


Mags
Im guessing you mean a homopolar generator Mag's,not a homopolar motor.
So are saying there is a lenz force,and some are saying there is not. The only way to find answers is to build one i guess. As copper plate here is extremely expencive,i guess i will have to melt down some copper pipe,and make my own disk-say around 12 inches in diameter.Then to wind some very large coils for electromagnet's,as PM's that size would cost an arm and leg.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 19, 2014, 07:57:29 AM
Probably one of the more interesting things about the homo polar motor is the fact that the ring magnet is able to spin with the disk and the disk still produces current. Now, is there any lenz braking happening while turning the disk with the ring magnet spinning with it while current is loaded from the disk? Is there resistance to turning the disk with the mag ring spinning with it? If there is, what is the wheel lenz braking against if the magnet spins with the disk?? If there is no lenz braking, and the faster we spin the wheel, the more current we get out without increasing drag, what does that mean to you?  One more thing. If there is lenz braking with using a disk, what can we replace the disk with to avoid it? ;)


Mags

You should buy a copy of Tom Valone's Homopolar Handbook. On the cover of that book is a photo of a large industrial homopolar dynamo, that is used in industry for billet heating and other things where you need huge currents but not much voltage. The way it works is that it is spun up to speed by hydraulic or other motive power, with peripheral brushes retracted off the disc. Then when it is at speed, with huge flywheel energy storage in the rotating disk, the peripheral brushes are slammed down onto the periphery of the disc and huge power is drawn off as very high currents for a few seconds as the rotation slows.

But in the text of the Handbook, you will find copies of the original research by Tom, and also the DePalma-Tewari documents, and a lot of other great information about homopolar dynamos. Many of the questions and problems posed in this thread are fully answered and explained in the Homopolar Handbook.

One of the more interesting things in the Handbook is the description of Tom's Master's thesis experiment, where he actually put an LED voltmeter _on the disk_  rotating with it. Can you guess his result?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on October 19, 2014, 08:05:24 AM
Im guessing you mean a homopolar generator Mag's,not a homopolar motor.
So are saying there is a lenz force,and some are saying there is not. The only way to find answers is to build one i guess. As copper plate here is extremely expencive,i guess i will have to melt down some copper pipe,and make my own disk-say around 12 inches in diameter.Then to wind some very large coils for electromagnet's,as PM's that size would cost an arm and leg.
Copper is nice because of its low resistance, and resistance is what kills homopolar dynamos. After all, when your generator voltage is only one or two volts maximum, it doesn't take much resistance to cut the current to nothing, even if there is a _lot_ of power available. But you don't have to use copper, you can use aluminum, it will work almost as well.
But there are plenty of torque-rpm graphs already available in the DePalma-Tewari work.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 19, 2014, 08:50:56 AM

When you subject a current carrying conductor to extreme repulsion, conductor itself will bend but electrons will not be ejected out.   Why?

Does it mean that electrons are tightly held to mass of the conductor?   If moving electrons are tightly held to the conductor, how they will move? 

And why they are called free electrons???  (when they cannot jump out of conductor subjected to repulsion?)

Can some 'genius' answer it?

Movement of a large number of electrons is responsible for producing a strong magnetic field in a coil or in a PM.   Magnetic field produced by an individual electron would be very less.  Hence even if you bring a very strong repelling pole near a coil,   force experienced by individual electron will be neglible and it will not be ejected out of the coil.

If you create a very strong density of magnetic flux combining several strong magnetic fileds and bring a coil near it,  then individual electrons may experince strong force and will be ejected out of coil.

Same thing would have happenned in Philadelphia experiment, where a person entering into strong magnetic field started  emitting blue flame.    All electrons in his body would have been ejected out and his body would have got positively charged!
 

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 19, 2014, 11:55:31 AM

If you create a very strong density of magnetic flux combining several strong magnetic fileds and bring a coil near it,  then individual electrons may experince strong force and will be ejected out of coil.



That would lead to an interesting experiment.   Take a lengthy wire, keep one end  immersed inside a strong magnetic field having very high flux density  and connect the other end of the wire to earth.   Electrons will be  ejected out from the wire at magnetic end creating a positive potential which causes  flow of electrons from earth to that  end of the wire.  But when electrons come to that spot,  they will be ejected out from that spot again.   So, a perpetaul flow of electrons is maintained in the wire from earth to magnetic end resulting in perpetual electric current!!!


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on October 19, 2014, 12:22:03 PM

That would lead to an interesting experiment.   Take a lengthy wire, keep one end  immersed inside a strong magnetic field having very high flux density  and connect the other end of the wire to earth.   Electrons will be  ejected out from the wire at magnetic end creating a positive potential which causes  flow of electrons from earth to that  end of the wire.  But when electrons come to that spot,  they will be ejected out from that spot again.   So, a perpetaul flow of electrons is maintained in the wire from earth to magnetic end resulting in perpetual electric current!!!
Now wouldnt that be nice if it were true.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 19, 2014, 01:32:14 PM

That would lead to an interesting experiment.   Take a lengthy wire, keep one end  immersed inside a strong magnetic field having very high flux density  and connect the other end of the wire to earth.   Electrons will be  ejected out from the wire at magnetic end creating a positive potential which causes  flow of electrons from earth to that  end of the wire.  But when electrons come to that spot,  they will be ejected out from that spot again.   So, a perpetaul flow of electrons is maintained in the wire from earth to magnetic end resulting in perpetual electric current!!!


You can do one thing.   Take a wire which extends from earth to outer space.  Connect a photosensitive plate on one end of the wire at outer space and connect  the other end of wire to earth.    Photons from sun  falling on photosensitive plate eject electrons out from the plate by photoelectric effect.    Hence there will be a perpetual flow of electrons from earth to outer space producing perpetual electric current in the wire because sun's life is infinite compared to our lifespan.


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 19, 2014, 03:48:17 PM
Liberty
I really do not think that this conductive path keeps jumping back up to reposition itself. This path between brushes would remain constant-no movement. That is like saying a light beam would bend if we spun a flash light around fast enough-just not going to happen.

You could be right about that Tinman.  But I find that induction in some form is always involved on the disk to create electrical charge on the disk from the motion and magnetic field.  It's more of a matter of how that separation of charge is tapped.  On the Faraday generator, he used a magnet on the area of the disk where the brushes were located (not on the rest of the disk), but as soon as the electrical potential on the disk escaped the magnetic field, it acted like an eddy current, and dissipated as loss and heat on the disk.  Tesla solved this by using a magnetic field on the entire disk to keep the charge separated.  Enjoyed the discussion and hearing others views.

Liberty
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Liberty on October 19, 2014, 03:51:11 PM
Copper is nice because of its low resistance, and resistance is what kills homopolar dynamos. After all, when your generator voltage is only one or two volts maximum, it doesn't take much resistance to cut the current to nothing, even if there is a _lot_ of power available. But you don't have to use copper, you can use aluminum, it will work almost as well.
But there are plenty of torque-rpm graphs already available in the DePalma-Tewari work.

I wonder if anyone has tried to use an inverter circuit to step up the voltage output right off of the generator output?  Seems like it would cut low voltage loss to only inverter loss.

Liberty
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Newton II on October 20, 2014, 12:06:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Quote :

"The other two describe how the fields "circulate" around their respective sources; the magnetic field "circulates" around electric currents and time varying electric fields in Ampère's law with Maxwell's addition, while the electric field "circulates" around time varying magnetic fields in Faraday's law."

"Maxwell's addition to Ampère's law is particularly important: it shows that not only does a changing magnetic field induce an electric field, but also a changing electric field induces a magnetic field."

While Maxwell's equations (along with the rest of classical electromagnetism) are extraordinarily successful at explaining and predicting a variety of phenomena, they are not exact, but approximations. In some special situations, they can be noticeably inaccurate. Examples include extremely strong fields (see Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian) and extremely short distances (see vacuum polarization).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on October 20, 2014, 06:12:14 PM
   In a circular particle accelerator they use magnetic fields to keep the charged particles from hitting the walls.  They accelerate them using efields and direct them by using bfields.    In copper there are a prime number of protons in the nucleus shielded by a large number of electrons in lower energy shells. The valence shell is always looking for electron pairs.  The atom is electrically neutral with it's 29 electrons and protons but due to electron pairing wants to loose one electron or gain one electron.  This makes for a good conductor as it is easy for the atom to give up an electron to a neighbor. The neighbor has eight and the donar 6.  The donar has a hole and the neighbor an excess electron.   An external force will easily overcome the pairing bond and move the excess electron to the atom with a hole.  This makes the electrons move in one direction while the holes move in the other.  To overcome the electron pairing and create a free electron you need only to affect the electron quantum spin properties.  Unlike in ionization where you need to add energy to the electron in order to free it.  Since electrons are spinnng they have magnetic dipole moments.  These dipole moments allow the electron to be effected by both the electric and magnetic fields. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on October 21, 2014, 03:13:13 AM
You should buy a copy of Tom Valone's Homopolar Handbook. On the cover of that book is a photo of a large industrial homopolar dynamo, that is used in industry for billet heating and other things where you need huge currents but not much voltage. The way it works is that it is spun up to speed by hydraulic or other motive power, with peripheral brushes retracted off the disc. Then when it is at speed, with huge flywheel energy storage in the rotating disk, the peripheral brushes are slammed down onto the periphery of the disc and huge power is drawn off as very high currents for a few seconds as the rotation slows.

But in the text of the Handbook, you will find copies of the original research by Tom, and also the DePalma-Tewari documents, and a lot of other great information about homopolar dynamos. Many of the questions and problems posed in this thread are fully answered and explained in the Homopolar Handbook.

One of the more interesting things in the Handbook is the description of Tom's Master's thesis experiment, where he actually put an LED voltmeter _on the disk_  rotating with it. Can you guess his result?

Havnt bought the book yet.  But here is a review of his book, and the site it came from that seems to indulge in homopolar info.


" I have seen the "N" machine work. So have a lot of people. My only wish is that Bruce's dream for free energy for this planet does not die with him. If you are a tech type person please ignore the "naysayer" that debunks this info and experiment on your own.  Make your own conclusions by building your own "N" machine. I guarantee you won't be disappointed or be wasting your time. I also know Bruce Depalma will be smiling down on you...                                                                             Mike Galloway"




http://depalma.pair.com/valone.html


http://depalma.pair.com/index.html


Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: richardemmanueljones on October 22, 2014, 08:39:16 PM
Just do this.

http://richardemmanueljones.blogspot.co.uk/
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on October 23, 2014, 12:29:29 AM
A magnetic field expels electrons or a wire carrying electrons which is the bases for all motors and generators so what happens when we inject electrons into a magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 28, 2014, 04:24:46 AM
In a HPG current flows from centre to edge of the disk.  Hence if you arrange the coil as shown in the above diagram, current will not flow from end to end of the coil but it flows from side to side of the coil.

If you cut a round coil, make it straight and place it from centre to the edge, and arrange several such straight coils on the disc, you may get better results because current flows from one end of the coil at centre to the other end on the edge,  which is the natural direction of flow of current in HPG.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on October 29, 2014, 04:28:57 PM
       This would have twirled alot of electric meters+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV1e5_tB6Y
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on October 30, 2014, 12:08:34 AM
In a HPG current flows from centre to edge of the disk.  Hence if you arrange the coil as shown in the above diagram, current will not flow from end to end of the coil but it flows from side to side of the coil.

If you cut a round coil, make it straight and place it from centre to the edge, and arrange several such straight coils on the disc, you may get better results because current flows from one end of the coil at centre to the other end on the edge,  which is the natural direction of flow of current in HPG.
I agree the electron should enter the center and exit the outer edge, the magnetic field should force (expel) the electron out.
Will it accelerate the electron  :-\ have not tested it yet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on October 30, 2014, 12:41:06 AM
This would be a more viable schematic.
The buck converter will lower the voltage so a higher voltage would be best.
In magnetron and radar research I read that current against the magnetic field gains energy whereas current moving with the field gives the field energy.
Anyway if anyone gives this a shot before I do give an update good or bad.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: vineet_kiran on October 30, 2014, 03:38:46 PM
There must be something that act's against the other something :-\. What i mean is-one magnetic field acts against the other,wether it be like poles ,or unlike poles. You just cant have nothing interacting with another nothing ::) So what dose this invisable force consist of?.

Quote:  They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light"
They are called what then?,and would a solar pannel see this low frequency/long wave length?.Wouldnt that be a hoot-throw some magnets on a solar pannel,and produce power without light :D

Magnetic field is massless hence a moving magnetic field will have massless momentum  which cannot be felt by inserting a solid object.  It can be felt by momentum produced by another massless magnetic field in opposite direction.  Hence when you bring two magnetic fields having momentum in opposite directions,  they collide and flyback (repulsion) just like two solid masses moving in opposite directions when collide,  move back due to impact.

What would be the difference between solid mass momentum and massless momentum?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on October 30, 2014, 05:10:24 PM
Electrons produce a magnetic field, or should I say moving electrons produce a magnetic field that is repelled in a magnetic field.
If you take a spherical magnet and place it in the center of a toroidal speaker magnet it is pushed to the outer edge, the magnetic field is trying to expel the sphere magnet, I suspect the same is happening to the electron.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: teslaedison on November 02, 2014, 06:34:00 PM
you guys know how to find the North and South poles really easy now ha ?    Use one magnet and put a string on it in the middle and then hold the string still in the air but make sure there is no metals around it to affect it ok and see how the magnet turns and then stops by the earths North and South poles affecting the one magnet so the one side of the magnet should be pointed to North and the other side of magnet should be pointing South which tells you the one that is pointing north is actually the South side and of course the other side has to be North that is attracting to the South right ?  YES !!!
Tom
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 12:20:51 AM
Just for fun, let's have a look at the BLOCH WALL DRAMA that we get in the free energy scene because many amateur experimenters have been corrupted and steadfastly want to believe that there is a Bloch wall inside a magnet when there isn't one.

All of the drama is on the YouTube clip that Ramset pointed to just today....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA)

I decided to debate Chris Skyes on his YouTube clip because he is a subscriber to the crazy theory about the Bloch wall being in the center of a magnet.  Bedini, Howard Johnson, and many other luminaries in the free energy cottage industry pitch this nonsense to the masses and I think that is the root cause for this problem.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

User2718218
1 day ago
 
This is a totally retarded clip and you Chris Sykes should be ashamed for putting crap like this on YouTube.  Any astute 15-year-old kid that did well in grade 10 physics could refute this nonsense and prove it is not true by working with a test setup on a bench.  It would only take him 20 minutes.  Unbelievable.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
1 day ago
 
+User2718218 - You are welcome to your opinion. The same was said for the Wright brothers just before they were recorded in history as the first people to Fly. You are welcome to "refute this nonsense and prove it is not true by working with a test setup on a bench" if you wish.

User2718218
1 day ago
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes I refuted this nonsense 30 years ago on a bench.  Why don't you try doing the same thing?  Build it and make measurements on it and report your results.  Your results will refute this nonsense portrayed in the clip.  Forget about playing the "Wright Brothers" card here.  This is not advancing science.  This is not new knowledge.  This is pure junk and prone to corrupt the minds of people that don't know any better.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
1 day ago
 
+User2718218 - "I refuted this nonsense 30 years ago on a bench" - I guess you missed something? Like I have said, I know others with this technology, they also have it working. Your opinion is really not making any difference to me or them. Have a nice Day User2718218 ;O)  

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
23 hours ago (edited)
 
+User2718218 - From what I can see - https://www.youtube.com/user/User2718218/discussion (https://www.youtube.com/user/User2718218/discussion) - Getting paid for it are you? @ALL Please take note of these Activity's! It appears as if we're being harassed. Those experienced in this field will know what this means! Hahaha

User2718218
22 hours ago
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Put up some links to their data and I will have a look at it.  I am telling you with 100% certainty that the information in the video is junk.  The two parts of the secondary coil generate EMFs that will cancel each other out so the output from the secondary will be close to zero.  If people won't or don't master the basics of electronics and in this case especially magnetism then they are going to fail all the time.  Spreading this nonsense via a YouTube clip makes it that much worse.   From your comments I take it that you have never done an experiment like this and are relying on others.  You see?  That is an example right there of 'garbage out' creating 'garbage in' on your side.

User2718218
22 hours ago
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Hahaha indeed.  The only problem is that you are laughing at the wrong thing.  Put your logical thinking cap on.   Do you honestly and truly think that playing with a transformer with a nonsensical secondary coil configuration could possibly be a 'new discovery demonstrating free energy?'   Now seriously think about this:  We have been mass producing things with coils acting as transformers in them since the advent of mainstream radio in the 1920s.  So that's for the last 90 years.  If this was real, do you really think that your buddies 'discovered the secret of the transformer with the 'alternative secondary coil'' in 2014?   Get real.  I am no MIB.  I am just an ordinary person pointing out to you how utterly ridiculous the 'pitch' is and now utterly ridiculous the 'technology' is.  What is in the clip is pure junk and any astute 15-year-old with an interest in electronics would also clearly see this is the case.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
21 hours ago (edited)
 
+User2718218 - I already have several Videos that show this Technology working. One is Low Level Energy Gain. See my Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/SweetSQM/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/SweetSQM/videos) - My first demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw) - This video is NOT OU but shows the effect (Nearly 4 Years Ago) - And My First Low Level Excess Energy Device: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQgch4L5XY&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQgch4L5XY&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw) From your comments, I think you're working for the Oil Companies? Bill Alek has also shown the very same technology, he is a qualified EE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddj85px00lM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddj85px00lM) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXno_7xXSZs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXno_7xXSZs) - I have shown this technology for many years. Bill had a little help, he mentioned the name in the video. This person gets paid to troll the net for ideas and then in secret Labs, very Highly Funded, they advance these technologies, and try to Patent and shelve the technologies, he then used my ideas to make his device work in these Labs, then gave the ideas to Bill because it cant be patented. I already have proven this to work and it is now up to you to do your bit, as it is up to everyone else. I suggest you seriously do some home work. Some basic Transformer Theory would be beneficial first! Maybe a read of: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf (http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf) - Which contains very basic Transformer Theory. Then if you feel you have any science to dispute go and do it!

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
21 hours ago (edited)
 
+User2718218 - You know, simply, just the way you think, reading your words and how you phrase things, limits you to prehistoric mentality's! I am going to ask you a favour! Please for your own sake, open your mind and stop being close minded, open your mind to the future. Thinking like yours is the reason that Science can not advance! Please do it for yourself! Take nothing for granted, assume nothing, do the Experiment, like you said, 20 minutes for an astute 15 year old. You could do it in 10 then?

User2718218
19 hours ago (edited)
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Thanks for the links.  For your first clip:  All that I see is you are pumping AC into a strange transformer setup from a car audio amplifier and one of the coils is connected to a light bulb.  The shorted coils are not doing much beyond dissipating some AC power.  For your second clip:  There is no such thing as a Bloch wall in a standard bar magnet.  I know this will upset you but don't you want the truth?  You really have to think about this one hard.  I see you playing with a small home-brew transformer on your bench, sometimes lighting up a small bulb, and calling it "low-level OU."  I don't see any measurements.  All little transformers like that are lossy and there is no OU there.  Instead of the "oil companies" pitch, what if I have more knowledge and experience than you and I know what I am talking about?   Where is Bill Alek's super-duper free energy scooter?  Didn't happen.  I never heard it claimed that he is an EE but it could be true.  That doesn't necessarily mean that he is right.  That Bill Alek clip was discussed in detail on OU.com and it got a failing grade.  I looked at the pdf and when I got to the Bloch wall stuff I stopped.  In glancing through it it looks like a mixture of Bearden and transformer stuff, including your demo setup.  Where is Bearden's MEG that was promised to go into production over 10 years ago?  In your clip where you track the "moving Bloch wall" when you stack more and more magnets together, the fact is that you are not correctly interpreting what the magnetic viewing film is showing you.  To be fair, almost nobody in the free energy realm knows how to correctly interpret magnetic viewing film.  Here is the bottom line:  You have bought into a lot of misconceptions.  They build upon each other and reinforce each other until they hit some critical mass and you start to believe that you know what you are doing and you got it right.  Don't believe me?   Would you be up to a debate on OU.com starting with the magnets and the viewing film and the Bloch walls?  You will come out of the debate a winner if you stick to it and you will be better able to separate the truth out from fiction.

User2718218
19 hours ago
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Sadly, it's you that is stuck in the box.  Look, suppose you debate the magnet/Bloch wall/viewing film with me and you see it my way.  This is just a thought experiment, bear with me.   Then we debate one of your transformer clips and you see it my way again.   Then were are you?  Do you see where I am going?  Maybe it will go the other way and I will be the one that changes.  However, it's very doubtful because you believe that there is a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet, probably because you read that from Tom Bearden, and most or all of your free energy peers agree with you.   Well, your world will be shaken a bit when you realize that there is no Bloch wall in a bar magnet in any way, shape, or form.  That could be your first step forward in the right direction.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
18 hours ago (edited)
 
+User2718218 - Your current debate is nothing to do with the actual Topic we have been discussing and avoids all of the fore mentioned debated issues? You're wasting my time, time spend best helping others move ahead. Experiment is TRUTH and you refuse to Experiment! You hide behind "User2718218" username and wont provide any substantial evidence to the contrary. All you do is verbally refute what's plainly in-front of you with no evidence to back your verbal mess up! I have provided proof, references, experiments, Videos showing working devices, Technical Proof's, Technical Explanations with scientifically provable evidence. Noise Cancellation, Irrefutable to any scientist. Working on the very same principals! You will however, still refute it because that's your JOB!!! Paid disinformationalist and time waster! Oil Company Troll!!!

User2718218
17 hours ago (edited)
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Spare me the oil stuff.  You have to cope with this fact:  You are dealing with a normal rational human being.  That's it and that's all.  It sounds to me like it's a crutch with you, somebody disagrees with you and you play the "big oil" card.  That way you don't have to actually debate with people that don't share your view.  It's a cop out.  Let me put it this way:  If you had one experiment or concept that you think clearly demonstrates what you are trying to get across, please point me to it and I will comment.  For other things:  You are asking me for evidence and I am not claiming anything.  If you state that you have a "slightly over unity" transformer setup, it's you that needs to provide clear evidence.  You are probably aware that measurement error often causes these erroneous conclusions, any chance that will come up with you?  Here is a hard fact for you that you may find hard to digest:  Easily 95% or more of free energy experimenters that play with coils all the time in reality have almost no clue how inductors actually work.  There is a good chance that you are in that 95% group also.  I tell you this from five years worth of observation.   Anyway, if you give me a pointer to your "big claim" I will have a look at it and let you know what I think.   Apart from that, there are no bloody Bloch walls inside a standard bar magnet.  If you don't understand that you are crippled.  Please just do the research or like I stated I can debate that with you on OU.com, I am MileHigh on that forum.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
14 hours ago
 
+User2718218 - Do the experiment or don't do the experiment - I don't care. All day we have debated and like OU.com we are no further ahead.

User2718218
8 hours ago
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Whatever you say is fine with me.  Just bear in mind if you "teach" people stuff like the erroneous business about Bloch walls then you just perpetuate ignorance.  Here is what a "magnet" with a Bloch wall down the center looks like:  [S---N][N---S].   Now, does that look like a proper magnet to you?   No!  It looks like two separate magnets in opposition "glued into one."  A "magnet with a Bloch wall down the center" is totally nonsensical and will defeat itself.  You have to contemplate this and THINK.  You have an entire separate clip about Bloch walls and it is completely wrong and you don't understand what you are looking at with the magnetic viewing film.  Again, you have to really THINK.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
3 hours ago
 
+User2718218 - This is all your own opinion!

User2718218
2 hours ago
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Chris, a magnet has all of the magnetic domains within it ALIGNED IN THE SAME DIRECTION.  By definition a Bloch wall forms the boundary between magnetic domains that are ALIGNED IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.   This is a magnet:  [S>>>>>>N].   All of the magnetic domains are aligned in the same direction and the is no Bloch wall.   This is a self-conflicting piece of ferrous metal with a Bloch wall between two magnetic domains that are in the opposite direction:   [S>>>>>>|<<<<<<S].   That is a device with a Bloch wall were there is a nonsensical arrangement of magnetic domains that produce their respective magnetic fields that will CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.  Now I am giving you the real deal, the truth.  Listen, do some Google searching and read up and spend a few days researching and informing yourself.  Your model for the "magnet with a Bloch wall down the center" will fall apart.  Trust me, get it together on your end.  Assuming you inform yourself and get it, then you will need to take down the bad clips and/or issue retractions.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
1 hour ago
 
+User2718218 - Your Scientific Evidence presented is amazing! NOT!!! Google Howard Johnson Magnetic Field (Qualified Engineer) as well as a million other Scientific Papers - You're nothing but verbal DIAREA - Go and get another Job! Experimental EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTABLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH RUBBISH YOU TALK. You dispute EXPERIMENT You're a fool! 

User2718218
7 seconds ago
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Okay Chris, let's do a thought experiment together.  We have a standard bar magnet.  I am going to enter the south end of the bar magnet and travel through the magnet and emerge from the north end.  Sort of like the old movie Fantastic Voyage.

Before I enter the south end of the magnet I note that there is a magnetic field in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.  1/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field.  1/2 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. I look around and I do not see any Bloch wall showing a boundary layer between magnetic domains and their associated magnetic fields that are in a different direction.  3/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. When I emerge from the north end of the magnet I note the magnetic field is still the same; it is still in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.

Now, that's what it's like when you travel through a magnet.  Please now give me your version of when you travel through a magnet that supposedly has a Bloch wall at the center.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
23 minutes ago (edited)
 
+User2718218 - Another post and we still are no further ahead! Lets do a REAL EXPERIMENT! Measure with SCIENTIFICIALLY proven to work with WELL KNOWN SCIENCE, a Hall Effect Probe same as Howard Johnson used, and really get somewhere. Measure the Magnet as Howard did, Map the Field Lines, as Howard Did! Or maybe a PEER REVIEWED Scientifically Proven: http://hamiltoninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WIN_HAM-5.pdf (http://hamiltoninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WIN_HAM-5.pdf) - I quote: "The photon experiences a spin relaxation (polarization) due to the magnetic field and the  polarization provided by the two-¼ wave glass panes and ferrofluid that we suspect effectively increases the reflectance of the interaction of the photons and the ferromagnetic nanoparticles suspended at the paramagnetic Bloch wall" - Really, SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT LYING TO SUIT YOUR OPINION!!!

User2718218
6 seconds ago
 
+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Chris, for starters you are deflecting my question.  I asked you to travel through the magnet just like I did and what's implicit is that you have to explain the rationale and the existence of the Bloch wall as you travel through it.   Are you up to the challenge?

The pdf mentions the ferrofluid viewer and offers up an esoteric explanation.  Starting at this posting on OU.com you get the REAL explanation for how the ferrofluid viewer works:  http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg430816/#msg430816 (http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg430816/#msg430816)

Going back to the issue at hand, if you tell me that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a magnet, then do a "magnet fly through" just like I did.  Come on, you want to stick to your guns, then put your money where your mouth is.  Explain the architecture of a magnet to me by flying through it using your OWN WORDS, don't point to a pdf.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 12:28:44 AM
Image compliments of Poynt99.

Look at the text and compare it to the image:

Before I enter the south end of the magnet I note that there is a magnetic field in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.  1/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field.  1/2 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. I look around and I do not see any Bloch wall showing a boundary layer between magnetic domains and their associated magnetic fields that are in a different direction.  3/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. When I emerge from the north end of the magnet I note the magnetic field is still the same; it is still in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 01:13:13 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs

In the above clip Chris Sykes thinks he is seeing Bloch walls with his magnetic viewing film.   The attached three images explain exactly what he is seeing, and it certainly is not a Bloch wall.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 02:05:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs

In the above clip Chris Sykes thinks he is seeing Bloch walls with his magnetic viewing film.   The attached three images explain exactly what he is seeing, and it certainly is not a Bloch wall.

MileHigh,

Hard Scientific Data that is PEER Reviewed with many other experiments to back up the HARD DATA is ONLY REFUTED BY FOOLS! Lets not forget, PROFESSIONALS doing Professional Experiments! Especially when more simple experiments that are very easily replicated also prove the same HARD DATA!

You're using ideas and diagrams from a 100 year old concept! It is time you update your theories!

PEER REVIEWED: http://hamiltoninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WIN_HAM-5.pdf

Don't embarrass Science and stop embarrassing yourself! Learn what's really real instead of what you read in out-dated, incorrect, text books!

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 03, 2015, 02:05:57 AM
Image compliments of Poynt99.

Look at the text and compare it to the image:

Before I enter the south end of the magnet I note that there is a magnetic field in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.  1/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field.  1/2 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. I look around and I do not see any Bloch wall showing a boundary layer between magnetic domains and their associated magnetic fields that are in a different direction.  3/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. When I emerge from the south end of the magnet I note the magnetic field is still the same; it is still in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.
OK ,im lost.
How or why dose the field turn around when you do,and exit where you entered?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 02:12:47 AM
MileHigh,

Hard Scientific Data that is PEER Reviewed with many other experiments to back up the HARD DATA is ONLY REFUTED BY FOOLS! Lets not forget, PROFESSIONALS doing Professional Experiments! Especially when more simple experiments that are very easily replicated also prove the same HARD DATA!

You're using ideas and diagrams from a 100 year old concept! It is time you update your theories!

PEER REVIEWED: http://hamiltoninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WIN_HAM-5.pdf

Don't embarrass Science and stop embarrassing yourself! Learn what's really real instead of what you read in out-dated, incorrect, text books!

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes
Christ, these people have confused magnitude for direction.  Optical illusion "leads out" massive delusion.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 02:27:03 AM
OK ,im lost.
How or why dose the field turn around when you do,and exit where you entered?.

I am not quite sure I follow you.  When I "travel" through the magnet, my nose is always pointed in the same direction.  I start from just outside the south end of the magnet, and I emerge just outside the north end of the magnet.   The magnetic field is always pointing in the same direction as my nose the whole time.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 02:34:06 AM
Christ, these people have confused magnitude for direction.  Optical illusion "leads out" massive delusion.

MarkE,

massive delusion? Of Blind Incompetence?

See, I provided references and HARD Data, you have nothing of the sort. And what's more cant!

massive delusion, I see, side by side with Blind Incompetence.

OU.com is full of Keyboard Junkies that simply are incompetent to learn anything new. No wonder you people have nothing running! You people need to get off your LAZY arses and do some work! with Open Minds! Five senses connected to a working brain will be the only thing that progress the common good!

Bill Alek is right on target!!!! You people shot him down even after providing Scientific Evidence! How many times are you going to let "IT" get away from you before you open your minds!

Or is it that, only your fingers get a workout?

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 02:45:45 AM
MarkE,

massive delusion? Of Blind Incompetence?

See, I provided references and HARD Data, you have nothing of the sort. And what's more cant!
Kindly look at your supplied data.  Look carefully.  See what those pretty light patterns really mean.  If your hypothesis is as in the graphic you posted a couple of posts back, that the field of a dipole magnet really goes from one end to the center instead of all the way around the magnet, then there are plenty of experiments that could be performed to demonstrate such behavior by simply using a long dipole.  The problem is that is not what happens when we investigate long dipoles.
Quote

massive delusion, I see, side by side with Blind Incompetence.

OU.com is full of Keyboard Junkies that simply are incompetent to learn anything new. No wonder you people have nothing running! You people need to get off your LAZY arses and do some work! with Open Minds! Five senses connected to a working brain will be the only thing that progress the common good!
Data:  Reliable data tells all.  Your data does not actually support your conclusions.  I don't see value hurling insults at you for your mistake.  I see value in encouraging you to look at your data and understand what it really means.
Quote

Bill Alek is right on target!!!! You people shot him down even after providing Scientific Evidence! How many times are you going to let "IT" get away from you before you open your minds!
I am sorry but Bill Alek has utterly and totally failed to support his extraordinary propositions.  If a day should come that he can actually support his claims with reliable data, then I will think better of his claims.
Quote

Or is it that, only your fingers get a workout?

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes
It is good that you abhor ignorance.  Don't succumb to it because doing so lets you believe what you would like as opposed to finding out what is true.  That cuts all ways.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 03, 2015, 02:46:43 AM
I am not quite sure I follow you.  When I "travel" through the magnet, my nose is always pointed in the same direction.  I start from just outside the south end of the magnet, and I emerge just outside the north end of the magnet.   The magnetic field is always pointing in the same direction as my nose the whole time.
Ah i see,you did a typo.
Quote your post:-before i enter the south end--When i emerge from the south end.
Im guessing that should have been-when i emerge from the north end.
I did highlite it in red in my reply.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 03:03:44 AM
Chris:

I read through the pdf.  The first issue is your statement that it is "peer reviewed."  To me that means it's a paper that is published in an academic journal.  My instincts are telling me that "peer reviewed" for you means people that you know of in the realm of free energy and alternative stuff.  They are usually not university educated from my experience and sometimes their "academic credentials" come from those "mills" that crank out a doctorate that you can hang on your wall for a price.

So the paper is not peer reviewed by any stretch of the imagination.

When I read the paper I can't be sure if the language and terminology is legit or not because I am out or my realm.  However, it doesn't strike me as being 100% legit but it is just a feeling.

I explained what you were seeing in the magnetic viewing film a few postings back.   You still cannot or will not do a "drive through" of a magnet like I did and explain the mechanics of your alleged Bloch wall at the center of a magnet.   Why is that?   Why can't you explain in real terms what the alleged Bloch wall is?

On the other hand, the model for a magnet with no Bloch wall is the accepted model.   If you cut a series of tiny slits into a bar magnet to locate the alleged Bloch wall the only thing that you will find with a Hall sensor is a continuous unidirectional magnetic field just like I described.  The iron filings do not lie, they orient themselves in line with the external magnetic field.  The magnetic field model with no Bloch wall makes perfect sense.

I can't explain the specific optical effects in the pdf.  However, those effects are related to reflection and refraction of light off of magnetically polarized strings of fine particles.  If I had a ferrofluid viewer myself I could play with it and get a feel for it.  I wonder if the pictures are just "cherry picked" pictures that show the desired optical effects.  Just like the vast majority of people that play with magnetic viewing film don't understand what it is showing them or how to use it, I can only suspect that some people that play with ferrofluid viewers suffer the same issues.

The magnetic field around a bar magnet is the same as they have been saying it is like since the 19th century.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 03:04:56 AM
Kindly look at your supplied data.  Look carefully.  See what those pretty light patterns really mean.  If your hypothesis is as in the graphic you posted a couple of posts back, that the field of a dipole magnet really goes from one end to the center instead of all the way around the magnet, then there are plenty of experiments that could be performed to demonstrate such behavior by simply using a long dipole.  The problem is that is not what happens when we investigate long dipoles.Data:  Reliable data tells all.  Your data does not actually support your conclusions.  I don't see value hurling insults at you for your mistake.  I see value in encouraging you to look at your data and understand what it really means.I am sorry but Bill Alek has utterly and totally failed to support his extraordinary propositions.  If a day should come that he can actually support his claims with reliable data, then I will think better of his claims.It is good that you abhor ignorance.  Don't succumb to it because doing so lets you believe what you would like as opposed to finding out what is true.  That cuts all ways.

MarkE,

So you're saying Howard Johnson's work is fake and Hall Probes don't work?

Please give me a break! Blind Following the Blind I have seen but this is amazing! A whole new level!

Wow, good luck, I know you are really going to need it! How many hours have you spent on OU.com and what have you learned? Learned nothing?

You people are Doomed!

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 03:07:55 AM
Ah i see,you did a typo.
Quote your post:-before i enter the south end--When i emerge from the south end.
Im guessing that should have been-when i emerge from the north end.
I did highlite it in red in my reply.

Thanks Brad, I corrected my text.  When I try to proofread my own text within 20 minutes of composing it it is very difficult to do because my brain is one step ahead of what I (think) I am reading.
Title: QMOGEN - community (magnetic motor)
Post by: linoavac on January 03, 2015, 03:16:00 AM
QMOGEN - community
I am the man of this work http://blog.hasslberger.com/2011/12/magnetic_vortex_-_experimental.html
MAGNETIC VORTEX PROOF.

I invite you to our community of QMOGEN (very recente, since last year) (filtered news, >600members)
https://plus.google.com/communities/113932584951030663517/stream/3e863c2d-3e9a-43ea-9c22-1d95ffa75419
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 03:25:01 AM
I will bring it back to that bloody green magnetic viewing film.  Chris is just one of many that is tricked up by it.   He believes that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a magnet, and then he sees a lighter green line on his viewing film just where he expects the Bloch wall should be, and he says, "Voila!  There is the Bloch wall!"

This is a very dangerous thing and a few postings back you see my graphic explaining what he is actually seeing with the magnetic viewing film.

Chris is not even asking himself precisely why the alleged Bloch wall should cause that effect on the viewing film.  Going further than that, he is not even asking himself what light areas and dark areas on the viewing film actually mean.

You trip yourself up enough and you can believe in some kind of "new explanation" or "new reality" for what is going on.  However, often these "new realities" often only work for one cherry-picked test and don't work for other tests.

For Chris, this phenomenon has extended to his transformer tests.  He claims one of his transformer tests is "slightly over unity" but all that I see is a strange funky and lossy transformer.  Proper measurements would confirm that the transformer setup is lossy.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 03:32:47 AM
@Mark E
Quote
Look carefully.  See what those pretty light patterns really mean.  If your
hypothesis is as in the graphic you posted a couple of posts back, that the
field of a dipole magnet really goes from one end to the center instead of all
the way around the magnet, then there are plenty of experiments that could be
performed to demonstrate such behavior by simply using a long dipole.  The
problem is that is not what happens when we investigate long dipoles.

I know I should just walk away from this one but it would seem to me the magnetic field is just another dipole field as shown below. As such the near field does not necessarily need to mirror the far field which becomes more and more spherical the further it reaches outward. If the magnetic field is a reflection of the electric field mathmatically then why wouldn't we see it as such conceptually?. I find it hard to believe we would model all our dipole fields in a similar manner and then say well no not this one the magnetic field is different, is it?.
I would also agree with milehigh's analogy of moving through a magnet and seeing a multitude of smaller parallel magnetic fields however a magnet is not an external magnetic field any more than an electric dipole is an external electric field.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 03, 2015, 05:32:46 AM
I will bring it back to that bloody green magnetic viewing film.  Chris is just one of many that is tricked up by it.   He believes that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a magnet, and then he sees a lighter green line on his viewing film just where he expects the Bloch wall should be, and he says, "Voila!  There is the Bloch wall!"

This is a very dangerous thing and a few postings back you see my graphic explaining what he is actually seeing with the magnetic viewing film.

Chris is not even asking himself precisely why the alleged Bloch wall should cause that effect on the viewing film.  Going further than that, he is not even asking himself what light areas and dark areas on the viewing film actually mean.

You trip yourself up enough and you can believe in some kind of "new explanation" or "new reality" for what is going on.  However, often these "new realities" often only work for one cherry-picked test and don't work for other tests.

For Chris, this phenomenon has extended to his transformer tests.  He claims one of his transformer tests is "slightly over unity" but all that I see is a strange funky and lossy transformer.  Proper measurements would confirm that the transformer setup is lossy.

MH:

Possibly Chris (and his peers) have a mental Bloch?  Or..."All in all...it's just another Bloch in the wall."  Pink Floyd.  (However, when viewed through the magnetic viewing film Pink Floyd actually looks green)

Sorry, I could not help myself.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 05:55:24 AM
@Mark E
I know I should just walk away from this one but it would seem to me the magnetic field is just another dipole field as shown below. As such the near field does not necessarily need to mirror the far field which becomes more and more spherical the further it reaches outward. If the magnetic field is a reflection of the electric field mathmatically then why wouldn't we see it as such conceptually?. I find it hard to believe we would model all our dipole fields in a similar manner and then say well no not this one the magnetic field is different, is it?.
I would also agree with milehigh's analogy of moving through a magnet and seeing a multitude of smaller parallel magnetic fields however a magnet is not an external magnetic field any more than an electric dipole is an external electric field.
AC
If the conventional view is correct then the longer the dipole, the more the magnetic field aligns parallel to the solenoid central axis near the middle of the dipole.  If the hypothesized view were correct then near the middle of the dipole the field would curl developing what is at the exact center field lines that are only perpendicular to the dipole.  Such a curl would not be difficult to demonstrate.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 05:57:12 AM
MH:

Possibly Chris (and his peers) have a mental Bloch?  Or..."All in all...it's just another Bloch in the wall."  Pink Floyd.  (However, when viewed through the magnetic viewing film Pink Floyd actually looks green)

Sorry, I could not help myself.

Bill
Whatever happened to Fay Wray?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 05:58:52 AM
Chris:

I read through the pdf.  The first issue is your statement that it is "peer reviewed."  To me that means it's a paper that is published in an academic journal.  My instincts are telling me that "peer reviewed" for you means people that you know of in the realm of free energy and alternative stuff.  They are usually not university educated from my experience and sometimes their "academic credentials" come from those "mills" that crank out a doctorate that you can hang on your wall for a price.

So the paper is not peer reviewed by any stretch of the imagination.

When I read the paper I can't be sure if the language and terminology is legit or not because I am out or my realm.  However, it doesn't strike me as being 100% legit but it is just a feeling.

I explained what you were seeing in the magnetic viewing film a few postings back.   You still cannot or will not do a "drive through" of a magnet like I did and explain the mechanics of your alleged Bloch wall at the center of a magnet.   Why is that?   Why can't you explain in real terms what the alleged Bloch wall is?

On the other hand, the model for a magnet with no Bloch wall is the accepted model.   If you cut a series of tiny slits into a bar magnet to locate the alleged Bloch wall the only thing that you will find with a Hall sensor is a continuous unidirectional magnetic field just like I described.  The iron filings do not lie, they orient themselves in line with the external magnetic field.  The magnetic field model with no Bloch wall makes perfect sense.

I can't explain the specific optical effects in the pdf.  However, those effects are related to reflection and refraction of light off of magnetically polarized strings of fine particles.  If I had a ferrofluid viewer myself I could play with it and get a feel for it.  I wonder if the pictures are just "cherry picked" pictures that show the desired optical effects.  Just like the vast majority of people that play with magnetic viewing film don't understand what it is showing them or how to use it, I can only suspect that some people that play with ferrofluid viewers suffer the same issues.

The magnetic field around a bar magnet is the same as they have been saying it is like since the 19th century.

MileHigh



MileHigh,

I was not going to get into this debate simply because for me, I have seen more evidence to support what I have shown regarding Bloch Walls and Magnetic Fields than most all other people will see in their entire lives!

Then I thought, well, if I can help just one person, then I will. It turns our I already have. So I will try to help more simply because if people are wanting to learn, make devices work on these principals and realise that the truth will always prevail, then I will try. Even though debating for the true for my self seems pointless, its not about me.

The Bloch Wall Exists!

1: One can Feel it!
2: One can See it!
3: One can Measure it!

Really, if one can do this much with the Bloch Wall, then debating weather it exists is the same as debating weather we breath Air! I have shown in my experiments that it Exists! Howard Johnson has shown in his experiments that it Exists! Richard E. Cadle has shown in his experiments that it Exists! Researchers for over a Hundred Years have shown that it exists!

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWOKefrcpAg

Experiments with the Coriolis Effect can also prove that there is a Bloch Wall.

Ref: "In physics, the "Coriolis Effect" is a deflection of moving objects when the motion is described relative to a rotating reference frame. In a reference frame with clockwise rotation, the deflection is to the left of the motion of the object; in one with counter-clockwise rotation, the deflection is to the right."

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MS3FM7bYas

The "Coriolis Effect" can be minipulated to actually show results in reverse. I can also provide experiment to show this.

The "Coriolis Effect" should be enough for most to prove that the Bloch Wall Exists! The "Coriolis Effect" dominates much of our weather systems! Cyclones actually turn in different directions depending on which side of the Equator they sit!

Really debating the "Coriolis Effect" it also to debate the "Bloch Wall" - Its a mute argument. It is there! It cant be denied! Too much evidence supports the "Bloch Wall"!

I hope your Imaginary argument of traveling through a Magnet is now disposed! If not then try doing an Imaginary "Coriolis Effect" maybe you will get the same result? Really you are arguing against so much evidence that youre wasting yours and Everyone elses Time!

Magnets are Real, the "Coriolis Effect" is real and I can provide an experiment to prove that its Magnetic in Nature, and the "Bloch Wall" is Real! None of this is going to go away! Facts are always with us, lies are forgotten.

Regards, and overly frustrated,

Chris Sykes

P.S: Use the Right Hand Rule on this Picture to see what's going on!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 06:13:43 AM
Thought I would add a few more speculations, I have mapped many magnets using an Arduino/labview setup and a hall sensor probe as well as an array. The greatest field change is not actually from pole face to pole face but from 1/2 span(field middle point if you will) up to the edge of the pole face on a 1" Dia x 1/2" N42 neo magnet. Which was unexpected, pole face to pole face was less than the two measures from pole face to center.


I would agree with Milehigh that the bloch wall is poor terminology, Wesley Gary's neutral center doesn't quite cut it in my opinion however I would have no problem labeling the field change from pole face to mid-point as flux leakage. Now if my flux mapping is correct and the greatest field change per unit length is from magnet pole to magnet center or mid-point then it would seem to me the turning force of the field might be a function of the combined leakage of each individual dipole moment which constitutes the whole which I would consider as flux leakage.


What I do know as a fact is that the field does turn towards the mid-point in the near field, the how and why has yet to be determined.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 06:24:55 AM
Christ, these people have confused magnitude for direction.  Optical illusion "leads out" massive delusion.

Looks like they aren't the only ones doing that. Funny how iron filings don't show that pinch at the waist, isn't it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 03, 2015, 06:46:08 AM
Looks like they aren't the only ones doing that. Funny how iron filings don't show that pinch at the waist, isn't it.

A couple of cool video's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8llkHQtaOlg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhytm8WYif0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-M07N4a6-Y
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 06:51:00 AM
I can also provide experiment to show this.

EXPERIMENT: "Coriolis Effect"

1: Replicate the "Coriolis Effect" expreriment in the above Video and record your Direction of Spin!
2: Place a LARGE Magnet under your Funnel with a reasonable Gap under the Spout so as to not impede the flow of water but not too far so the Field of the Magnet is too far away.
3: Replicate the "Coriolis Effect" experiment with the control Magnet under your Funnel.
4: Flip your Magnet over and Replicate again.

Result:
You will see the Direction of the "Coriolis Effect" change depending on the Polarity of the Magnet to the Polarity you are on the Earth.

The Bloch Wall Exists!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 07:02:38 AM
Looks like they aren't the only ones doing that. Funny how iron filings don't show that pinch at the waist, isn't it.

Iron Filings are a VERY Bad control and should not be used! They only are used by amateurs that simply don't know any better!

Reason: it's the same as two wires carrying current in the opposing directions can not lay parallel together! The Spins repel each other. As a result they are repelled from each other! This means the take an alternate path. That's why Iron Filings are So Much Denser on the Poles that in the centre of the Magnet!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 03, 2015, 07:05:14 AM
Whatever happened to Fay Wray?

I think King Kong took her out...but it was an accident.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 08:51:15 AM
Chris:

Quote
Experiments with the Coriolis Effect can also prove that there is a Bloch Wall.

Quote
The "Coriolis Effect" should be enough for most to prove that the Bloch Wall Exists!

Okay for starters, how can the existence of the Coriolis Effect prove there is a Bloch Wall?  They are two separate things with no relation to each other.  I actually do realize where it is coming from, because in your other clip they show the "curling (magnetic?) field" inside a bar magnet and so curling stuff inside a magnet equals the curling Coriolis Effect... or does it?  Who says there has to be any relationship at all?  More importantly, there are no curly magnetic fields inside the magnet.

The clip where the guy crosses the equator to demonstrate the draining water changing directions is just for show for tourists to make a bit of money.  My analog computer in my brain is telling me that it is not true because the forces at play are so minimal that they will be less than the random motion of the water molecules and currents from pouring the water into the drainage bowl in the first place.  It just a variation on slight of hand to amuse the tourists.  Yes of course the Coriolis Effect is real, but you have to be more than a few feet from the equator for it to take effect.  The important lesson there is to understand proportion and when things are significant and when they are insignificant.

Quote
I hope your Imaginary argument of traveling through a Magnet is now disposed!

The challenge is still there for you.  My "Fantastic Voyage" (no Raquel Welch dammit) through the magnet has been described.  We did not encounter a Bloch Wall or a heart valve.  So I challenge you to do the same thing.

You cannot forget that "Bloch Wall" means there is a discontinuity in the magnetic field directions inside a piece of metal or a magnet.  There is a change in the direction of a magnetic field when you pass through a Bloch wall by definition.

So I would love to see you do your own "Fantastic Voyage" through your version of a magnet.

You note that "my version" of a magnet is simple and clean.  Everybody is pointed in the same direction, end of story.  Nature usually tends to favour the simple.

With respect to your evidence for the Bloch Wall.  I have already dealt with the magnetic viewing film in another posting.  I also saw in your clip where your metal piece with the pointed end "jumps" past what you believe is the Bloch Wall.  You state that this is an indication of the presence of the Bloch Wall.  But that's not what is actually happening.  The metal piece is just jumping to a place with the lowest magnetic potential energy.  That happens to be on either side of what you are calling the Bloch Wall in your particular clip.  In other words, it's simple magnetic attraction causing the jump, not the alleged Bloch Wall.

Anyway, if you can write up the magnet fly-through I am sure we would be interested to read it.  Also, please give me any other evidence that you can offer up that you believe confirms the existence of the Bloch Wall and we can look at it and debate it.

Thanks,

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 10:34:52 AM
Okay for starters, how can the existence of the Coriolis Effect prove there is a Bloch Wall?  They are two separate things with no relation to each other.

MileHigh,

Yes different Effects entirely! But Look at EVIDENCE:

No Hurricane has ever passed across the Equator! Ever!

Water under controlled Conditions turns in Different Directions each Side of the Equator!

I have given you an Experiment that can prove that the Direction of the water turning can be changed with Magnetic Fields!

Spin is Why Iron Filings are a TERRIBLE Control and look at the Spin in the Coriolis Effect, Same with the Equator and Hurricanes Never crossing it!

This is just one more small piece to the BIG OVERALL Picture! Evidence mounts and its all got Experiment to back it up!

I am not ALWAYS Right, its not what I am saying, but when Facts are Facts, its only a fools game to deny them!

See the attached Pictures for more information:

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 11:38:29 AM
You note that "my version" of a magnet is simple and clean.  Everybody is pointed in the same direction, end of story.  Nature usually tends to favour the simple.

MileHigh,

Your opinion does not make for scientific proof by any means! In-fact quite the opposite! "Nature usually tends to favour the simple." Yes it does, but your "theory" accounts for no effects in Nature, Galactic Plane? Why is there one and why not all Planets just stacked end on end like a bunch of Paper Clips hanging from a Magnet?

You're missing most all of the stuff I have provided Proof's for. Really, Why s Gravity 3% less at the Equator?

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVntSA-qoQ

The Equator has been with us through out History! Why do we have an Equator for Earth but Not for a Magnet? This is non sense! A Magnet has an Equator EXACTLY the same as the Earth does! The Equator is evident on every Planet that has a Magnetic Field! I have provided MANY Experiments and a mountain of Hard Scientific Data with references! Your too blind to see for the Trees in your Theory! Still I am not trying to convince you, I am providing some LOGIC for others reading. Some hard DATA for people to think about, real facts that can be backed up with simple experiments!

There is a MILLION Things you're missing because of your "Theory" - You have not a single bit of Scientific Evidence! You're missing Nature! Its just YOU on an Imaginary ride through your Magnet and YOU decide where your destination is!

You're Lost, really lost!

I hope you find it! I really do!

Chris Sykes - www.hyiq.org
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 03, 2015, 11:52:43 AM
MileHigh,

Your opinion does not make for scientific proof by any means! In-fact quite the opposite! "Nature usually tends to favour the simple." Yes it does, but your "theory" accounts for no effects in Nature, Galactic Plane? Why is there one and why not all Planets just stacked end on end like a bunch of Paper Clips hanging from a Magnet?

You're missing most all of the stuff I have provided Proof's for. Really, Why s Gravity 3% less at the Equator?

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVntSA-qoQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVntSA-qoQ)

The Equator has been with us through out History! Why do we have an Equator for Earth but Not for a Magnet? This is non sense! A Magnet has an Equator EXACTLY the same as the Earth does! The Equator is evident on every Planet that has a Magnetic Field! I have provided MANY Experiments and a mountain of Hard Scientific Data with references! Your too blind to see for the Trees in your Theory! Still I am not trying to convince you, I am providing some LOGIC for others reading. Some hard DATA for people to think about, real facts that can be backed up with simple experiments!

There is a MILLION Things you're missing because of your "Theory" - You have not a single bit of Scientific Evidence! You're missing Nature! Its just YOU on an Imaginary ride through your Magnet and YOU decide where your destination is!

You're Lost, really lost!

I hope you find it! I really do!

Chris Sykes - www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org)

Chris:

So, are you suggesting that the equator on the earth is a sort of Bloch wall for the planet then?  I understand your points about the Coriolis effect and I do agree since this equates with what I was taught.

Interesting...I will have to think about this....

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 12:10:56 PM
Chris:

So, are you suggesting that the equator on the earth is a sort of Bloch wall for the planet then?  I understand your points about the Coriolis effect and I do agree since this equates with what I was taught.

Interesting...I will have to think about this....

Bill

Hi Bill,

Yes of course, sure is!

Evidence speaks for itself, nonsense does too! People are not stupid! Sooner or later experiment and Logic will speak truth!

All the Best

  Chris

P.S: My devices are not dependant on the BLOCH WALL! They use standard Laws in Noise Cancellation! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 01:49:22 PM
Iron Filings are a VERY Bad control and should not be used! They only are used by amateurs that simply don't know any better!

Reason: it's the same as two wires carrying current in the opposing directions can not lay parallel together! The Spins repel each other. As a result they are repelled from each other! This means the take an alternate path. That's why Iron Filings are So Much Denser on the Poles that in the centre of the Magnet!

What you mean is that iron filings REFUTE your silly contention, so they should not be used!

Don't you even realize how your green film works? Clearly not. It is showing you exactly the same thing that the iron filings are showing you, because basically that is what it is. What you are calling a "Bloch Wall" is the area where the embedded ferromagnetic particles in the film are presenting a different surface to you than they are at the "poles" of the magnet. Every magnetic field modelling software, every engineer who designs things like motors and generators that work, will be in agreement with MH on this topic, and will just be laughing at you. The green film is just a convenient way of using "iron filings" and you are completely  misinterpreting what it is telling you.

The Coriolis effect has ZERO, nothing at all, to do with magnetic fields. Nothing, zip, nada. If the Earth did not rotate there would be no Coriolis effect. If the Earth's magnetic field were to flip or disappear altogether, the Coriolis effect would still happen just as it does now, as long as the Earth rotates.

Your Reason is also false. The iron filings are more dense at the "poles" of the magnet because the field is concentrated there. The iron filings are bits of material with high permeability which means, in real science-speak, that they provide an easier path for the field than does empty space or air. The iron filings trace out the field direction by their orientation, and the field strength by their concentration.

Parallel current carrying wires have magnetic field lines that are circular around the wire. This field does not "spin". If you draw out the vectors which represent these circular field lines you will see... no, scratch that, because you only see what you want to see. Anyone who really can observe, will see that the vectors describe the repulsion or attraction, depending on the current direction, just as they do in a normal magnet.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 02:02:39 PM
Chris:

So, are you suggesting that the equator on the earth is a sort of Bloch wall for the planet then?  I understand your points about the Coriolis effect and I do agree since this equates with what I was taught.

Interesting...I will have to think about this....

Bill
Where did you ever learn that the Coriolis effect has anything to do with magnetism? I'd like to see that reference, please.

There is no magnetic "equator" to the Earth in the same sense as the rotational equator. There is an approximate zone where the Earth's field is maximally parallel to the surface and this is what is called the "magnetic equator", equidistant from the _magnetic poles_. The magnetic poles, as you know, are not in the same location as the rotation poles of the Earth. The Coriolis effect depends on the Earth's rotation _only_, not magnetism.  The Earth's field has the same kind of orientation as the field from a sphere magnet, roughly. Near the magnetic poles, the "dip" (magnetic inclination) is such that the field points nearly up and down, which is why conventionally-mounted magnetic compasses don't work too well; they want to point down or up rather than swivelling in the horizontal plane. Near the middle of the field, that is approximately along the Earth's rotational equator, the "dip" is horizontal and magnetic compasses work the best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 02:06:42 PM
Chris:

Quote
Iron Filings are a VERY Bad control and should not be used! They only are used by amateurs that simply don't know any better!

Reason: it's the same as two wires carrying current in the opposing directions can not lay parallel together! The Spins repel each other. As a result they are repelled from each other! This means the take an alternate path. That's why Iron Filings are So Much Denser on the Poles that in the centre of the Magnet!

Did you look a Tinman's linked clips?  They are great.

Your argument against iron filings doesn't hold water.  What do you mean by a spin?  What do you mean by an alternate path?

Look, everything related to magnetic field generation stems from one elemental thing - the magnetic field of a moving point charge.  This can easily be derived on paper using logic and mathematics.  The iron filing patterns just confirm for us visually what we know is there already from deductive reasoning.  There is no such thing as a north pole or a south pole.  There is no such thing as a Bloch Wall in a bar magnet.  There is just moving point charges and the associated magnetic fields that they produce.  Every moving point charge generates a magnetic field that undergoes vector addition with the magnetic fields generated by all the other moving point charges.  A bar magnet is nothing more than a brick of trillions of moving point charges generating a larger magnetic field.

Here are two clips that lay it all out for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrUPxWfVvk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrUPxWfVvk)

That's really all there is when you distill it down to it's bare essence.

You have now had several opportunities to make your case and state it on your terms.  You have been given the opportunity to discuss a fly-through of your model of a bar magnet but you have avoided that.

So what have you stated:  There is a Coriolis force because of the spinning Earth??  That has nothing to do with what we are even talking about.  You talk about being scientific.  You are supposed to discuss how a magnet works and your response is to talk about the Corillis force and how hurricanes spin in different directions in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Does that sound scientific to you?

Sorry but you haven't made your case at all.  Do you see that also?  There is no substance to your argument at all.

My suggestion to you is to rethink all of this stuff out in your head again and to get up the learning curve.  All of your experiments will still be the same with the same results, but hopefully you will have the proper insight.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 02:48:33 PM
Couple interesting photo's.
The first is a science project my 10 year old son did proving the iron filing experiment found in every textbook is incorrect. The filings align forming lines due to magnetic induction which he showed on a larger scale with short suspended iron wires. It is not a true representation of the magnetic field it is an effect produced by magnetic induction due to the presence of a magnetic field. Magnetic viewing film is simply smaller pieces of iron suspended in a film and ferrofluid even smaller iron particles. The scale of the particles may change however the effect of magnetic induction is the same.


The second picture is a bar magnets field captured using neutron spin, I believe, which is a more true representation of the field in my opinion. The reason for the curvature in my opinion is leakage, take one magnet and the field curls back on itself...the dipole field. Take two magnets together and the main field curls back plus each individual field of each magnet also curls back as flux leakage. Now take millions of dipole fields combined to produce the main field but all produce flux leakage in themselves which forms a field distortion. Obviously flux lines cannot cross because there are no lines in reality and it is a simple effect produced my magnetic induction. However the field can be distorted in the near field which is perfectly acceptable according to the laws we know.


The thing to remember is we know flux leakage occurs and we also know every magnetic field we see is the combined effort of many smaller magnetic fields. So why would we presume flux leakage occurs on one level but not the other?.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 03:40:10 PM
Looks like they aren't the only ones doing that. Funny how iron filings don't show that pinch at the waist, isn't it.
I would say: stunning, yes.  I invite any of them to show that the curl at the center that they claim exists, but which soft magnetic material does not seem influenced by does not diminish as a dipole gets longer.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 04:02:10 PM
Couple interesting photo's.
The first is a science project my 10 year old son did proving the iron filing experiment found in every textbook is incorrect. The filings align forming lines due to magnetic induction which he showed on a larger scale with short suspended iron wires. It is not a true representation of the magnetic field it is an effect produced by magnetic induction due to the presence of a magnetic field. Magnetic viewing film is simply smaller pieces of iron suspended in a film and ferrofluid even smaller iron particles. The scale of the particles may change however the effect of magnetic induction is the same.
Do you or do you not understand that induction requires a changing magnetic field?  Iron filing experiments are performed with static, unchanging magnetic fields.  Kindly explain the induced field after:  1s, 5s, or 1 minute.  Do the filings align differently in those time frames as the induced electric field diminishes towards zero?
Quote


The second picture is a bar magnets field captured using neutron spin, I believe, which is a more true representation of the field in my opinion. The reason for the curvature in my opinion is leakage, take one magnet and the field curls back on itself...the dipole field. Take two magnets together and the main field curls back plus each individual field of each magnet also curls back as flux leakage. Now take millions of dipole fields combined to produce the main field but all produce flux leakage in themselves which forms a field distortion. Obviously flux lines cannot cross because there are no lines in reality and it is a simple effect produced my magnetic induction. However the field can be distorted in the near field which is perfectly acceptable according to the laws we know.


The thing to remember is we know flux leakage occurs and we also know every magnetic field we see is the combined effort of many smaller magnetic fields. So why would we presume flux leakage occurs on one level but not the other?.


AC
No presumption for or against flux leakage is necessary to make correct observations using ordinary static magnets and iron filings.  If you would like to investigate further, go buy one of those nice analog output Hall effect sensors from Allegro Microsystems probe, record, and plot the magnetic field orientation and magnitude around various magnets, permanent and electric.  You will see that the conventional view offered with lowly iron filings is in fact correct.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 03, 2015, 05:39:52 PM
  You will see that the conventional view offered with lowly iron filings is in fact correct.
The iron filings do not show a correct representation of the magnetic field around a magnet,and the reason for this is because each individual iron filing becomes a tempoary magnet it self when in the presence of a magnetic field. So you are basically surounding your PM with very small PM's when you use iron filings. If you want to know what the actual field looks like around say a rod magnet,you simply put two tennis balls together--this represents the field shape around a rod magnet. The field strength of a magnet is at it's strongest at the center(between the two pole ends),but it is concentrated within the magnetic material,and thus the reason for the zero attraction force around the outside of the center of the magnet. Picture a figure 8,and you have your magnetic field shape.

Oh-by the way-the coriolis effect has nothing to do with this mistical bloch wall,and everything to do with a force that is acting in a direction that is perpendicular to the axis of the rotating mass.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 06:07:26 PM
The iron filings do not show a correct representation of the magnetic field around a magnet,and the reason for this is because each individual iron filing becomes a tempoary magnet it self when in the presence of a magnetic field. So you are basically surounding your PM with very small PM's when you use iron filings. If you want to know what the actual field looks like around say a rod magnet,you simply put two tennis balls together--this represents the field shape around a rod magnet. The field strength of a magnet is at it's strongest at the center(between the two pole ends),but it is concentrated within the magnetic material,and thus the reason for the zero attraction force around the outside of the center of the magnet. Picture a figure 8,and you have your magnetic field shape.

Oh-by the way-the coriolis effect has nothing to do with this mistical bloch wall,and everything to do with a force that is acting in a direction that is perpendicular to the axis of the rotating mass.
Tinman, the fact that iron filings magnetize is exactly why they are a good indicator of the the magnetic field orientation and strength.

If you want to test your hypothesis, then that is easy:  Go purchase an analog Hall effect sensor and probe the field of a dipole magnet or any other magnet shape you care to look at.  Or you have a large dipole, like a long wooden dowel or plastic rod with a winding along its length, then you can just use a compass.  The figure eight idea you promote would cause the compass needle to turn 90 degrees at the dipole center when held off axis.  That does not happen.  Held off axis, the compass will always point most parallel to the dipole closest to the dipole center.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 06:43:45 PM
@Mark E
Quote
Do you or do you not understand that induction requires a
changing magnetic field?  Iron filing experiments are performed
with static, unchanging magnetic fields.  Kindly explain the
induced field after:  1s, 5s, or 1 minute.  Do the filings align differently in
those time frames as the induced electric field diminishes towards zero?
Ah I see the problem you are thinking of Electromagnetic Induction and I am speaking of Magnetic Induction.
Magnetic Induction: 1.The process by which a substance, such as iron or steel becomes magnetized by a magnetic field. The Induced Magnetism is produced by the force of the field radiating from the poles of the magnet.
Quote
No presumption for or against flux leakage is necessary to make correct
observations using ordinary static magnets and iron filings.  If you would like
to investigate further, go buy one of those nice analog output Hall effect
sensors from Allegro Microsystems probe, record, and plot the magnetic field
orientation and magnitude around various magnets, permanent and electric.  You
will see that the conventional view offered with lowly iron filings is in fact
correct.
That was what I was using when I made the measurements, an analog hall effect sensor as well as a hall effect sensor array I built as I stated in my prior posts. Your not listening and inferring things which are incorrect. I did not say induction I specifically said "Magnetic Induction" which is a very simple and well know fundamental principal known to most everyone who understands basic physics. A permanent magnet having a magnetic field will induce a magnetic field of opposite polarity in a piece of iron within it's field of influence. The induced magnetic field in the iron is considered as a separate magnetic field in itself and can be measured as such even though it is a function of an external field.
To make my point, I try to avoid superficial observations which tend to confuse even most experts and concentrate on Primary Physics. This is the primary field phenomena such as the Electric, Magnetic and Gravic fields in their most fundamental forms. It avoids all the confusion I am seeing here and concentrates on the most fundamental interactions between the Primary Fields. You need to start studying the basics of Magnetic Induction and Electrostatic Induction and how they relate to one another in reality versus your textbook theory.

Now go back to the image on magnetic induction I posted until you actually understand it, my 10 year old son does so I am sure you can.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 07:42:03 PM
@Mark EAh I see the problem you are thinking of Electromagnetic Induction and I am speaking of Magnetic Induction.
Magnetic Induction: 1.The process by which a substance, such as iron or steel becomes magnetized by a magnetic field. The Induced Magnetism is produced by the force of the field radiating from the poles of the magnet.That was what I was using when I made the measurements, an analog hall effect sensor as well as a hall effect sensor array I built as I stated in my prior posts. Your not listening and inferring things which are incorrect. I did not say induction I specifically said "Magnetic Induction" which is a very simple and well know fundamental principal known to most everyone who understands basic physics. A permanent magnet having a magnetic field will induce a magnetic field of opposite polarity in a piece of iron within it's field of influence. The induced magnetic field in the iron is considered as a separate magnetic field in itself and can be measured as such even though it is a function of an external field.
To make my point, I try to avoid superficial observations which tend to confuse even most experts and concentrate on Primary Physics. This is the primary field phenomena such as the Electric, Magnetic and Gravic fields in their most fundamental forms. It avoids all the confusion I am seeing here and concentrates on the most fundamental interactions between the Primary Fields. You need to start studying the basics of Magnetic Induction and Electrostatic Induction and how they relate to one another in reality versus your textbook theory.

Now go back to the image on magnetic induction I posted until you actually understand it, my 10 year old son does so I am sure you can.

AC
Do you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron filings?  By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron reduces the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the newly magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the region of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact correspond to the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the dipole at the dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is false.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 08:24:30 PM
@All refuting the Iron Filing contrives!

Ever heard of Spin Polarisation - Please do some homework! Its basic Science!

Again something else that refutes Non-Sense of Magnets not having an equator - for the same reason Planets revolve the Galactic Plane, Why does the Frog become weightless in the "Middle" of the Field, where the Bloch Wall is:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 08:48:45 PM
Do you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron filings?  By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron reduces the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the newly magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the region of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact correspond to the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the dipole at the dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is false.

MarkE and TK,

Magnetics since the very early days has stated: "magnetic field lines always form closed loops"

Iron Filings show clearly an approximate 70% LOSS of Magnetic Field Line Closure - How do you account for this AMAZING fact!

Really Ridiculous Science is no longer holding water! But yet its still being preached by the Priest's here on ou.com! People are smarter than that!

How is it that Ferro-Fluid can show a TOTALLY DIFFERENT Pattern to Iron Filings? Iron Fillings are Conductive! Conductivity is another part of Magnetism, that's why its now called Electromagnetism!  Electric is at 90 Degrees to Magnetic! Really people please add some logic to your piffle! "Coriolis Effect" in Ferro Fluid:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 03, 2015, 08:57:42 PM


Where did you ever learn that the Coriolis effect has anything to do with magnetism? I'd like to see that reference, please.



No where.  What I said/meant was what I was taught about the Coriolis effect agreed with what Chis said about it. (It being the Coriolis Effect)..about the magnetism and equator Bloch wall, I said it was interesting and I will have to think about that.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 08:58:05 PM
Chris:

Yes, water is very slightly diamagnetic and in the presence of a strong enough magnetic field a frog can be made to float in air.

It looks to me like all that you are doing is paraphrasing stuff that you have read about magnetism from junk sources.  In those books they talk about all sorts of stuff and try to connect it with magnetism.  Unfortunately it's just not true.  It's a form of alternative pulp fiction.  I remember having a debate with a guy that told me that the moon was changing in its orbit and something "big" was going to happen.  I told him that was impossible.  I told him that there were tens of thousands of amateur astronomers and if it was really true we would hear about it.  He had nothing to say, he was jut parroting stuff that he had read.

Can you make a case for a Bloch Wall being at the center of a bar magnet without talking about unrelated matters?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 09:12:42 PM
MarkE and TK,

Magnetics since the very early days has stated: "magnetic field lines always form closed loops"
They do.
Quote

Iron Filings show clearly an approximate 70% LOSS of Magnetic Field Line Closure - How do you account for this AMAZING fact!
That's a nice assertion.  Care to back it up?  Care to show how if we introduce iron filings that 70% of the field lines that previously went pole to pole no longer make it?  Care to show where the iron filings supposedly send those lines off to?
Quote

Really Ridiculous Science is no longer holding water! But yet its still being preached by the Priest's here on ou.com! People are smarter than that!
Actual reliable data always tells the true story.  The story you are telling is just odd.
Quote

How is it that Ferro-Fluid can show a TOTALLY DIFFERENT Pattern to Iron Filings? Iron Fillings are Conductive! Conductivity is another part of Magnetism, that's why its now called Electromagnetism!  Electric is at 90 Degrees to Magnetic! Really people please add some logic to your piffle! "Coriolis Effect" in Ferro Fluid:
Now you have just gone into left field.  In a TEM wave the propagating electric field is at 90 degrees to the propagating magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 09:17:38 PM
The iron filings do not show a correct representation of the magnetic field around a magnet...

You're EXACTLY RIGHT Tinman!

Oh-by the way-the coriolis effect has nothing to do with this mistical bloch wall,and everything to do with a force that is acting in a direction that is perpendicular to the axis of the rotating mass.

And again you're right, the "Coriolis Effect" is NOT the Bloch Wall! Just as if you were to watch the Sun Rise, a Cloud passes the Light Rays of the Sun and a Silver Lining is seen around the Cloud! This Is not the Sun, and its not the cloud, but in-fact a mixture of effects showing another!

Why does Ferro Fluid not show a SINGLE Flux Line like the MAGICAL IRON FILINGS???? What could that space in the Middle of the Polar Regions be??? It sort of looks like an Equator??? Really - Surely by now the proof I have given you PREACHERS Should be enough! But alas, like I said, some here can not be converted! I am not trying to convert anyone! I am showing provable facts! Giving Evidence to backup my Well Researched Science!

NONE HERE Have done the Same! Verbal Non-Sense with not a single bit of factual evidence!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 09:19:29 PM
@Mark E
Quote
Do you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron
filings?  By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron
reduces the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the
newly magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the
region of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact
correspond to the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the
dipole at the dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is
false.
Good points now what have we learned, well we have learned absolutely nothing new have we which is exactly what always happens when an argument is based on winning the argument rather than understanding. Why anyone can play that game, all you have said is false and logically it must be false because some very intelligent scientists who produced the picture below have proven you false. You see I don't have to think about anything or learn anything or research anything and all I have to do is show a picture, I win, but we both lose don't we?.
LOL, I will have to consider your question further before posting an answer.
AC
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 09:35:44 PM
They do.That's a nice assertion.  Care to back it up?

MarkE - Did I not provide visuals? Care to back up any argument to the Contrary?

Part of your argument actually agrees with what I had already said! Are you agreeing? Or are you trying to make a counter debate? Its really not clear?

Fact is Iron Filings For Viewing Magnetic Fields is one of the worst experiments that anyone can do! Simply because some don't know better! Spin Polarisation of Conductive Iron Fillings - is the reason! To dispute this is to dispute most of electrical Engineering!

Common MarkE - You sound like a fairly smart kind of a guy! Explain just some of the points I have brought up with the existing Imaginary Theory held in this forum!

The Earth has an Equator because of its Magnetic Field, A Magnet has an Equator too - if one does simple experiments, you can:

1: See it!
2: Feel it!
3: Measure it!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 09:39:44 PM
@Mark EGood points now what have we learned, well we have learned absolutely nothing new have we which is exactly what always happens when an argument is based on winning the argument rather than understanding. Why anyone can play that game, all you have said is false and logically it must be false because some very intelligent scientists who produced the picture below have proven you false. You see I don't have to think about anything or learn anything or research anything and all I have to do is show a picture, I win, but we both lose don't we?.
LOL, I will have to consider your question further before posting an answer.
AC

Nice Pic AC!!! I wonder what that could be showing, very clearly! Is that an Equator? I think it is!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 09:45:42 PM
The Equator and the Bloch Wall are the same things!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 09:49:17 PM
@Mark EGood points now what have we learned, well we have learned absolutely nothing new have we which is exactly what always happens when an argument is based on winning the argument rather than understanding. Why anyone can play that game, all you have said is false and logically it must be false because some very intelligent scientists who produced the picture below have proven you false. You see I don't have to think about anything or learn anything or research anything and all I have to do is show a picture, I win, but we both lose don't we?.
LOL, I will have to consider your question further before posting an answer.
AC
Are you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 09:49:57 PM
@Mark E
Quote
Do you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron filings? 
By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron reduces
the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the newly
magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the region
of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact correspond to
the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the dipole at the
dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is false
.
Okay it seems pretty straightforward, where is the point of greatest field density and where is the point of the lowest field density?. The poles have the highest field density therefore the lowest density must be somewhere inbetween ie. the center. Now if the induced magnetic fields are coupled in lines then the translation of force in the field is along those lines repelling and attracting through there own coupling. So why would we think there would be any deflection in the induced magnetic lines near the center where the field has the least influence?. I know many think this is a simple issue but it is not as the induced iron filing fields are individual magnets interacting with one another as well as the external field, there is a lot of stuff going on here.
Of course once again my thoughts are in question because of the last picture I posted however the picture is based on neutron spin and not induced magnetism in iron which are obviously not the same thing. So there is our answer I believe however I have yet to understand the exact mechanism of how and why the field geometries are so different. Damn I think I just learned something...woot.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 09:52:42 PM
Are you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.

What, NO FIELD LINES IN CLOSURE ON THEMSELVES? Wow! Nice assertion!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 09:52:47 PM
@Mark E
Quote
Are you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that
you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.
I could ask you the same question, the picture I posted looks nothing like the one posted of iron filings in a magnetic field... or have I missed something?.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 10:11:37 PM
@Mark EI could ask you the same question, the picture I posted looks nothing like the one posted of iron filings in a magnetic field... or have I missed something?.
AC
Quite the contrary.  According to the conventional view which iron filing experiments support, field lines become most parallel close to the dipole mid point.  According to this "equator" idea the field lines close ellipses at the equator.  In other words:  the curl is maximum there.  Look at your picture.  The lines come parallel.  They do not turn to form closed upper and lower ellipses.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 10:36:59 PM
@Mark E
Quote
Quite the contrary.  According to the conventional view which iron filing
experiments support, field lines become most parallel close to the dipole mid
point.  According to this "equator" idea the field lines close ellipses at the
equator.  In other words:  the curl is maximum there.  Look at your picture. 
The lines come parallel.  They do not turn to form closed upper and lower
ellipses.
Okay you don't see the connection which is fine however I have to thank you for asking some pretty hard questions today and it's appreciated. I mean I learned a ridiculous amount of new stuff today and it only seems to work if I start asking the right questions in the right context and start connecting the dots. We could say me pushing you to push me harder moves me forward faster but you have to connect the dots and see the solution in it otherwise it's pointless. It was awesome:)
To the bench... .
AC
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 10:47:32 PM
@Mark EOkay you don't see the connection which is fine however I have to thank you for asking some pretty hard questions today and it's appreciated. I mean I learned a ridiculous amount of new stuff today and it only seems to work if I start asking the right questions in the right context and start connecting the dots. We could say me pushing you to push me harder moves me forward faster but you have to connect the dots and see the solution in it otherwise it's pointless. It was awesome:)
To the bench... .
AC
You do see that the contours turn parallel near the center of the dipole don't you?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 10:50:41 PM
Logic Card - because Score Card is a little bit boast-full!

Pink Team : 1

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 11:05:24 PM
Logic Card - because Score Card is a little bit boast-full!

Pink Team : 1

Logic Card because Score Card is a little bit boast-full!

Green Team : 8 + 3 Video Links

URL1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MS3FM7bYas
URL2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVntSA-qoQ
URL3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 11:27:47 PM
Plus one more: (Thinking very Hard kiddies, what is the Natural Current Sheet?)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 11:54:05 PM
Plus one more: (Thinking very Hard kiddies, what is the Natural Current Sheet?)

This one is from NASA just in case you're STILL worried that I have not provided enough SCIENTIFIC PROOF that there is an Equator, also known as a Bloch Wall:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 12:22:23 AM
In Any Court of Law, that verdict would have been already drawn. Bad Science would be paying Damages and me, well I would be in my lab, experimenting on BASIC IDEAS THAT WORK WITH SOLID SCIENCE TO BACK IT ALL UP.

Time to make changes People! Time to Clean our your Clogged Cavity's!

Like I said a few days ago:

"Experimental EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTABLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH RUBBISH YOU TALK. You dispute EXPERIMENT You're a fool!"

Maybe if I had a OU.com score of 10,000 I could Bullshit People up the garden path! I would rather use REAL Science and get somewhere!

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 01:10:30 AM
In Any Court of Law, that verdict would have been already drawn. Bad Science would be paying Damages and me, well I would be in my lab, experimenting on BASIC IDEAS THAT WORK WITH SOLID SCIENCE TO BACK IT ALL UP.

Time to make changes People! Time to Clean our your Clogged Cavity's!

Like I said a few days ago:

"Experimental EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTABLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH RUBBISH YOU TALK. You dispute EXPERIMENT You're a fool!"

Maybe if I had a OU.com score of 10,000 I could Bullshit People up the garden path! I would rather use REAL Science and get somewhere!

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
The most appropriate term for what you are espousing is:  face palm.  It is worse than wrong.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 01:15:47 AM
Tinman, the fact that iron filings magnetize is exactly why they are a good indicator of the the magnetic field orientation and strength.

If you want to test your hypothesis, then that is easy:  Go purchase an analog Hall effect sensor and probe the field of a dipole magnet or any other magnet shape you care to look at.  Or you have a large dipole, like a long wooden dowel or plastic rod with a winding along its length, then you can just use a compass.  The figure eight idea you promote would cause the compass needle to turn 90 degrees at the dipole center when held off axis.  That does not happen.  Held off axis, the compass will always point most parallel to the dipole closest to the dipole center.
The strongest outer field strength is at each pole end of a magnet at the outer edge of that pole,and the most concentrated field is at the center of the two pole ends(what would be the middle of a rod magnet for EG). The figure 8 represents the field strength quite good other than it would need a dip in the center of the top and bottom peaks. You dont need any flash hall sensors,all you need is a simple fram,a spring,a hinge and a good size nail or steel rod. The compass also shows exactly the pattern of a figure 8 when running it down the length of a long rod magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 01:21:30 AM
The most appropriate term for what you are espousing is:  face palm.  It is worse than wrong.

And this MarkE is your Scientific Rebuttal?  You've proved debate is past helping some! Some are lost, very lost!

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 02:15:54 AM

Quote
The figure eight idea you promote would cause the compass needle to turn 90 degrees at the dipole center when held off axis.  That does not happen.  Held off axis, the compass will always point most parallel to the dipole closest to the dipole center.

Now you are confusing your self between the two poles of the compass needle being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet with the thinking that the compass needle is showing the orientation of the field it self,as if you believe that the field is along the plane of the compass needle. The iron filings become magnets them self,and want to be attracted to each pole end,but also repelled by each other. This is why you get the pattern you do when useing iron filings,and not a true representation of the magnets field line's(no field lines actually exist). An example is a steel ball placed between to north fields of two apposing magnets will be attracted to a point,then repelled away from those magnets when it gets close enough. The same thing happens to the iron filings,and gives you a faulse indication that the field  travels around a magnet from one pole to the other.Field line's,bloch walls and field flow are all fictional ,and do not actually exist in either a PM or electromagnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 02:17:33 AM
The stongest outer field strength is at each pole end of a magnet at the outer edge of that pole,and the most concentrated field is at the center of the two pole ends(what would be the middle of a rod magnet for EG). The figure 8 represents the field strength quite good other than it would need a dip in the center of the top and bottom peaks. You dont need any flash hall sensors,all you need is a simple fram,a spring,a hinge and a good size nail or steel rod. The compass also shows exactly the pattern of a figure 8 when running it down the length of a long rod magnet.
Tinman as is taught in school and has been known for many, many years, the field around a dipole follows a contiguous closed path from pole to pole.  You can see this for yourself with a very simple experiment.  All you need is a compass and some bar magnets that you can configure into a dipole much longer than the compass diameter.  Align the dipole along east west.  Position the compass at points around the dipole from one end to the other and note the needle position.  The needle aligns with the field.  The north seeking end of the compass needle will point along the field lines away from the north magnet pole parallel to the lines themselves.  If as is proposed the lines turned inward towards the magnet at the dipole midpoint, this would be immediately obvious.  They don't.  As in the conventional view, the compass indication is most stable near the dipole midpoint.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 02:29:12 AM
Some more Evidence that Iron Filing Experiments are for people that simply cant comprehend why they are faulted experiments!

What We See: Ferrofluid Spikes are the Poles of the Magnets. Middle, between the Ferrofluid Spikes is the Bloch Wall or the Equator!

Again I will give you the Reason why: Iron Fillings are Conductive, Electric and Magnetic Vectors are at 90 degrees to each other. Spin Polarisation will not allow them to show what's really there!

Credit: http://vimeo.com/16908278

As Ferrofluid is dropped in from the top of the sample, we can CLEARLY see in Slow-mo that the Field Lines are not allowing for what some view as Iron Filling Lines to be closed from Pole to Pole!!! There is CLEARLY, same as on the Sun, Filament Eruptions, they are repelling each other!!!

YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnp5YyJqjGg&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 02:33:05 AM
Tinman as is taught in school and has been known for many, many years, the field around a dipole follows a contiguous closed path from pole to pole.  You can see this for yourself with a very simple experiment.  All you need is a compass and some bar magnets that you can configure into a dipole much longer than the compass diameter.  Align the dipole along east west.  Position the compass at points around the dipole from one end to the other and note the needle position.  The needle aligns with the field.  The north seeking end of the compass needle will point along the field lines away from the north magnet pole parallel to the lines themselves.  If as is proposed the lines turned inward towards the magnet at the dipole midpoint, this would be immediately obvious.  They don't.  As in the conventional view, the compass indication is most stable near the dipole midpoint.

MarkE - This is a TOTAL Cop-Out! It doesn't hold water for a Long Solenoid!

WOW Talk about quoting Textbooks that are old science that are already proven to be WRONG!!!

Seriously do the experiment!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 04, 2015, 02:35:23 AM
Video on the Aharanov-Bohm effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgDPK5MLVnE

"Simply speaking when an electron beam passes around the middle of a long solenoid, the beam is strangely deviated and the interference pattern on the screen slides".

Here we can see the field in the middle is zero:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=786wRJqhoMY
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 02:46:56 AM
"Simply speaking when an electron beam passes around the middle of a long solenoid, the beam is strangely deviated and the interference pattern on the screen slides".

Synchro1 - NICE Find! - Yet more evidence!!!!

Again, doesn't Hold Water MarkE!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 02:55:05 AM
Some more Evidence that Iron Filing Experiments are for people that simply cant comprehend why they are faulted experiments!

What We See: Ferrofluid Spikes are the Poles of the Magnets. Middle, between the Ferrofluid Spikes is the Bloch Wall or the Equator!

Again I will give you the Reason why: Iron Fillings are Conductive, Electric and Magnetic Vectors are at 90 degrees to each other. Spin Polarisation will not allow them to show what's really there!

Credit: http://vimeo.com/16908278

As Ferrofluid is dropped in from the top of the sample, we can CLEARLY see in Slow-mo that the Field Lines are not allowing for what some view as Iron Filling Lines to be closed from Pole to Pole!!! There is CLEARLY, same as on the Sun, Filament Eruptions, they are repelling each other!!!

YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnp5YyJqjGg&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw
Your conclusions are not supported by the videos that you show.  The second video decidedly refutes your claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 04, 2015, 02:58:48 AM
Synchro1 - NICE Find! - Yet more evidence!!!!

Again, doesn't Hold Water MarkE!!!

@Chris,

The experiment on pages 13 and 14 of your PDF, proving that a magnetic field slows electric current down, places MarkE's DLE wrong theory squarely in the dumps. It's clear now that there is delay in the coil coupled with increased field strength! Thanks!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 03:00:21 AM
Video on the Aharanov-Bohm effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgDPK5MLVnE

"Simply speaking when an electron beam passes around the middle of a long solenoid, the beam is strangely deviated and the interference pattern on the screen slides".

Here we can see the field in the middle is zero:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=786wRJqhoMY
The second video again soundly refutes your claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 03:13:51 AM
The second video again soundly refutes your claims.

Its well known today in ALL PHYSICS that Your claim is Wrong MarkE - A Long Solenoid proves, and blows your prehistoric textbook theory, with NO experimental evidence to prove other wise! Right out of the Water!

You have nothing to stand on!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 03:39:23 AM
Its well known today in ALL PHYSICS that Your claim is Wrong MarkE - A Long Solenoid proves, and blows your prehistoric textbook theory, with NO experimental evidence to prove other wise! Right out of the Water!

You have nothing to stand on!
This is beyond face palm material.  Anyone with a hobby store or Radio Shack nearby can purchase the materials needed to perform the grade school experiments that have been conducted countless times.  Those experiments support the correct conventional view that the magnetic lines of force go from pole to pole and not from either pole to the dipole mid-point as shown in my prior graphic.  Feel free to repeat such an experiment and show whether you get the result that "prehistoric textbook theory" predicts or the compass deflects perpendicular to the dipole at the center as your claims require.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 04, 2015, 03:44:37 AM
This is beyond face palm material.  Anyone with a hobby store or Radio Shack nearby can purchase the materials needed to perform the grade school experiments that have been conducted countless times.  Those experiments support the correct conventional view that the magnetic lines of force go from pole to pole and not from either pole to the dipole mid-point as shown in my prior graphic.  Feel free to repeat such an experiment and show whether you get the result that "prehistoric textbook theory" predicts or the compass deflects perpendicular to the dipole at the center as your claims require.

The field changes polarity pole to pole. The transistion zone is neutral. This is what the video shows
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 04:01:25 AM
This is beyond face palm material.  Anyone with a hobby store or Radio Shack nearby can purchase the materials needed to perform the grade school experiments that have been conducted countless times.  Those experiments support the correct conventional view that the magnetic lines of force go from pole to pole and not from either pole to the dipole mid-point as shown in my prior graphic.  Feel free to repeat such an experiment and show whether you get the result that "prehistoric textbook theory" predicts or the compass deflects perpendicular to the dipole at the center as your claims require.

MarkE - Your experiment proves nothing other than a Compass Works! That the North Pole of a Compass is Attracted to the South Pole of a Magnet and vice versa!

It proves nothing else! It DOES NOT prove that the Lines of Force you propose from Pole to Pole are Contiguous or even exist! This is a TOTALLY PROPOUSTEROUS Argument! So you're essentially saying that the Earth HAS NO EQUATOR?

You're Impossibly Confused with High School Science from back in 1932 I think!

Oh but they knew then that there was an Equator, or were you off sick that day? Cant have been because your previous drawing clearly shows a boundary between North (Red) and South (Blue)!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 04:26:23 AM
Tinman as is taught in school and has been known for many, many years, the field around a dipole follows a contiguous closed path from pole to pole.  You can see this for yourself with a very simple experiment.  All you need is a compass and some bar magnets that you can configure into a dipole much longer than the compass diameter.  Align the dipole along east west.  Position the compass at points around the dipole from one end to the other and note the needle position.  The needle aligns with the field.  The north seeking end of the compass needle will point along the field lines away from the north magnet pole parallel to the lines themselves.  If as is proposed the lines turned inward towards the magnet at the dipole midpoint, this would be immediately obvious.  They don't.  As in the conventional view, the compass indication is most stable near the dipole midpoint.
As i said,your analogy is incorrect,and cannot be shown with a compass. See my modified picture below. As you can clearly see,the compass will still show exactly the same as it would in your example.The magnetic polarity of the compass needle is simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet. To say that the compass needle should point toward the center of the magnet if my analogy was correct is also wrong. To what pole would the north attracting end of the needle on the compass point to,as the center of the magnet has both a north field and a south field. The field at the center of a magnet(between each pole end)is concentrated within the magnetic material it self,and only at the pole ends dose that field extend beyound the magnetic material. The field then tappers from the pole ends back into the magnetic material near the center between the two pole end's.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 05:26:30 AM
As i said,your analogy is incorrect,and cannot be shown with a compass. See my modified picture below. As you can clearly see,the compass will still show exactly the same as it would in your example.The magnetic polarity of the compass needle is simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet. To say that the compass needle should point toward the center of the magnet if my analogy was correct is also wrong. To what pole would the north attracting end of the needle on the compass point to,as the center of the magnet has both a north field and a south field. The field at the center of a magnet(between each pole end)is concentrated within the magnetic material it self,and only at the pole ends dose that field extend beyound the magnetic material. The field then tappers from the pole ends back into the magnetic material near the center between the two pole end's.

Tinman, your model fits much better in the overall spectrum of data than the crazy Iron Filing Model! - There is an Equator, also known as the Bloch Wall! Its there, its undeniable to anyone that has a partial clue on Magnetics!

Kind Regards

Chris Sykes
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 05:32:04 AM
It's incredible how if you want to believe something you can shoehorn your beliefs into your shoes until the point where they are on the edge of bursting open.

Chris, you you are just throwing everything out there except for what really counts - discuss a bar magnet itself.  Not the sun, not pictures of ferrofluid, no talk about the equator, etc.   With respect to ferrofluid, what it is showing you when it bulges up is that the ferrofluid is trying to find a spot where there is the minimum MPE, there is some GPE thrown in the balancing process, and then there is surface tension affecting all of that.   In layman's terms, when you see the spiked bulges in the ferrofluid under the influence of a magnet, it's like when you drop your umbrella on the floor.  The umbrella wants to find the lowest GPE state - so it doesn't float in the air, it doesn't fall to the floor standing on end - it falls onto the floor and lays down flat on the floor.   That's what the ferrofluid spikes are doing also - falling "down."

The is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity.

Tinman:

Quote
the center of the magnet has both a north field and a south field

Nope, there is no such thing as the field lines switching from "north" to "south" as you cross the center of a magnet.  The field lines just have a direction.  At any point anywhere around the magnet there is a detectable field around the magnet.  The magnetic field is a vector, it has magnitude and direction.  We have simply adopted a convention for a bar magnet to designate the magnetic field as being "north" or "south."  But the truth is the only thing there is is magnitude and direction.

Take the example of Kenny and his bean sprout growing experiments.  He claimed something like seeds grown under the influence of a north field grow better than the seeds grown under the influence of a south field.  I don't think he provided any specifics beyond that but I'm not sure.

Here is the problem:  If you point the north end of a magnet at the seeds, and the magnet is under the seeds, it will be the same a pointing the south end of a magnet at the seeds when the magnet is over the seeds.

(seeds)
  N
  S

is equal to

  N
  S
(seeds)

Do you see that?  What the seeds experience is a function of the pole pointed at the seeds and the position of the magnet.  I somehow doubt that Kenny ever specified the position.

Anyway, I am not shocked about this debate with Chris because I am jaded.  But believe me, it is absolutely shocking.  It's absolutely shocking how basic scientific concepts about electricity and magnetism can be used and abused by pulp pseudoscience writers out there.  The writers can be deluded themselves, or, they are just cynical manipulators of other people in search of a dollar.

Like, what the hell was that Bedini "windmill motor" all about that was eventually sold for scrap?   The answer is that it was junk scrap from the very beginning.  It was nothing more than a prop for a conference.  And like I always say, at those conferences they will not teach you how an inductor works, and by the same token they will presumably not teach you how magnetic fields work.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 05:58:38 AM
Let's discuss an ideal case for an iron filings test.

In the ideal case the iron filings will not clump together.   Also, they will be fairly spread apart so that there are always big gaps with empty space between the filings.

So if you can imagine iron filings that are spread out but somehow they don't move at all, that is a near-ideal setup.

Why is this ideal?  It's because the filings will barely affect the magnetic field reluctance of the space around the magnet.  With no perceptible changes in reluctance, the field from the magnet will be undisturbed.

What is the problem when the filings clump up at the poles?   The problem is then the filings are creating their own low-reluctance path for the magnetic field of the magnet, and that will disturb the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field.

So why are the iron filings so great?   Under the influence of the magnet, they simply line themselves up with the external magnetic field.  That's all that they do.   One more time, it's the falling umbrella analogy.  The iron filings "fall" to their lowest magnetic potential energy state under the influence of the magnetic field.   Because the overall reluctance of the space is not changed by the presence of the iron flings, the filings basically do nothing except "fall."

So, you have an explanation for how the filings work, and you have the evidence right in front of your eyes.  Do you see any filings pointing towards an imaginary Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet?  No, you don't see this, and the filings don't lie.

We understand how and why the iron filings work, and then we observe them at work.  That's the reality.

To claim that there is something wrong with using iron filings is just ridiculous.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 04, 2015, 05:59:12 AM
@MileHigh,

"There is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity".

This is a complete and utter falsehood! What kind of perverse pleasure do you get from distorting the truth that shamelessly? You are a very mentally disturbed person who should try and get help.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 06:02:45 AM
@MileHigh,

"The is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity".

This is a complete and utter falsehood! What kind of perverse pleasure do you get from disorting the truth that shamelessly? You are a very mentally disturbed person who should try and get help.

http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428891/#msg428891
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 06:03:14 AM
As i said,your analogy is incorrect,and cannot be shown with a compass. See my modified picture below. As you can clearly see,the compass will still show exactly the same as it would in your example.The magnetic polarity of the compass needle is simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet. To say that the compass needle should point toward the center of the magnet if my analogy was correct is also wrong. To what pole would the north attracting end of the needle on the compass point to,as the center of the magnet has both a north field and a south field. The field at the center of a magnet(between each pole end)is concentrated within the magnetic material it self,and only at the pole ends dose that field extend beyound the magnetic material. The field then tappers from the pole ends back into the magnetic material near the center between the two pole end's.
It is elementary that a compass follows the magnetic lines of force that it is exposed to.  In your diagram that does not happen.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 06:19:17 AM
It's incredible how if you want to believe something you can shoehorn your beliefs into your shoes until the point where they are on the edge of bursting open.

Chris, you you are just throwing everything out there except for what really counts - discuss a bar magnet itself.  Not the sun, not pictures of ferrofluid, no talk about the equator, etc.   With respect to ferrofluid, what it is showing you when it bulges up is that the ferrofluid is trying to find a spot where there is the minimum MPE, there is some GPE thrown in the balancing process, and then there is surface tension affecting all of that.   In layman's terms, when you see the spiked bulges in the ferrofluid under the influence of a magnet, it's like when you drop your umbrella on the floor.  The umbrella wants to find the lowest GPE state - so it doesn't float in the air, it doesn't fall to the floor standing on end - it falls onto the floor and lays down flat on the floor.   That's what the ferrofluid spikes are doing also - falling "down."

The is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity.

Tinman:

Nope, there is no such thing as the field lines switching from "north" to "south" as you cross the center of a magnet.  The field lines just have a direction.  At any point anywhere around the magnet there is a detectable field around the magnet.  The magnetic field is a vector, it has magnitude and direction.  We have simply adopted a convention for a bar magnet to designate the magnetic field as being "north" or "south."  But the truth is the only thing there is is magnitude and direction.

Take the example of Kenny and his bean sprout growing experiments.  He claimed something like seeds grown under the influence of a north field grow better than the seeds grown under the influence of a south field.  I don't think he provided any specifics beyond that but I'm not sure.

Here is the problem:  If you point the north end of a magnet at the seeds, and the magnet is under the seeds, it will be the same a pointing the south end of a magnet at the seeds when the magnet is over the seeds.

(seeds)
  N
  S

is equal to

  N
  S
(seeds)

Do you see that?  What the seeds experience is a function of the pole pointed at the seeds and the position of the magnet.  I somehow doubt that Kenny ever specified the position.

Anyway, I am not shocked about this debate with Chris because I am jaded.  But believe me, it is absolutely shocking.  It's absolutely shocking how basic scientific concepts about electricity and magnetism can be used and abused by pulp pseudoscience writers out there.  The writers can be deluded themselves, or, they are just cynical manipulators of other people in search of a dollar.

Like, what the hell was that Bedini "windmill motor" all about that was eventually sold for scrap?   The answer is that it was junk scrap from the very beginning.  It was nothing more than a prop for a conference.  And like I always say, at those conferences they will not teach you how an inductor works, and by the same token they will presumably not teach you how magnetic fields work.

MileHigh
MH
I will have to disagree with you on this one in regards to the field surrounding the whole magnet.The north and south analogy is simply me sticking with what people understand. If MarkE wants to stick to things we were taught at school,then north and south it is-you cant have your cake and eat it aswell. I know that there is not a north or south pole(you know this),nor are there field lines as such(this i have said in this thread). I am simply useing the terms that most are familiar with,and taught at school.

First up-what is a bloch wall?. Quote: A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains. So now what is a magnetic domain?-Quote: A magnetic domain is a region within a magnetic material which has uniform magnetization. This means that the individual magnetic moments of the atoms are aligned with one another and they point in the same direction.

Well we know if we turn the alignment of the atoms around at mid point in the magnet,we would end up with two like poles at each end of the magnet. So this brings us to the correct conclusion that there is NO bloch wall at the mid point between the two poles of a magnet,and that a bloch wall can only exist where the magnetic moments of the atoms are not aligned with each other.

The field around a magnet however is not a uniform flow as it is through the center of the magnetic material. There are many experiments that can show a 0(or very close to)external magnetic field strength at the mid point of a magnet.How ever,the field strength in the center of the magnetic material is at it's strongest. If we look at the diagram below(one of the actual test i have performed),we can see three steel balls(in green) The magnet is a cylinder magnet(sizes in diagram). When the steel ball is placed in the center of the two poles on the outside of the magnet,the ball will roll to one end or the other,depending on which side the ball is off center. This is the ball being attracted to the strongest part of the magnetic field. But if we put the steel ball into the whole that is through the magnets center,the steel ball will be drawn to the center of the magnet-not either end. This is because the field strength is at it's highest in the center of the magnetic material. The dark blue figure 8 line represents field strength.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 06:25:07 AM
It's incredible how if you want to believe something you can shoehorn your beliefs into your shoes until the point where they are on the edge of bursting open.

Chris, you you are just throwing everything out there except for what really counts - discuss a bar magnet itself.  Not the sun, not pictures of ferrofluid, no talk about the equator, etc.   With respect to ferrofluid, what it is showing you when it bulges up is that the ferrofluid is trying to find a spot where there is the minimum MPE, there is some GPE thrown in the balancing process, and then there is surface tension affecting all of that.   In layman's terms, when you see the spiked bulges in the ferrofluid under the influence of a magnet, it's like when you drop your umbrella on the floor.  The umbrella wants to find the lowest GPE state - so it doesn't float in the air, it doesn't fall to the floor standing on end - it falls onto the floor and lays down flat on the floor.   That's what the ferrofluid spikes are doing also - falling "down."

The is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity.

Tinman:

Nope, there is no such thing as the field lines switching from "north" to "south" as you cross the center of a magnet.  The field lines just have a direction.  At any point anywhere around the magnet there is a detectable field around the magnet.  The magnetic field is a vector, it has magnitude and direction.  We have simply adopted a convention for a bar magnet to designate the magnetic field as being "north" or "south."  But the truth is the only thing there is is magnitude and direction.

Take the example of Kenny and his bean sprout growing experiments.  He claimed something like seeds grown under the influence of a north field grow better than the seeds grown under the influence of a south field.  I don't think he provided any specifics beyond that but I'm not sure.

Here is the problem:  If you point the north end of a magnet at the seeds, and the magnet is under the seeds, it will be the same a pointing the south end of a magnet at the seeds when the magnet is over the seeds.

(seeds)
  N
  S

is equal to

  N
  S
(seeds)

Do you see that?  What the seeds experience is a function of the pole pointed at the seeds and the position of the magnet.  I somehow doubt that Kenny ever specified the position.

Anyway, I am not shocked about this debate with Chris because I am jaded.  But believe me, it is absolutely shocking.  It's absolutely shocking how basic scientific concepts about electricity and magnetism can be used and abused by pulp pseudoscience writers out there.  The writers can be deluded themselves, or, they are just cynical manipulators of other people in search of a dollar.

Like, what the hell was that Bedini "windmill motor" all about that was eventually sold for scrap?   The answer is that it was junk scrap from the very beginning.  It was nothing more than a prop for a conference.  And like I always say, at those conferences they will not teach you how an inductor works, and by the same token they will presumably not teach you how magnetic fields work.

MileHigh

To be quite honest you people sound like good people, as nearly all are! You're all welcome to your opinions. Your opinions are yours and you have come to them for your own reasons!

MileHigh - You started off criticizing my work: "This is a totally retarded clip and you Chris Sykes should be ashamed for putting crap like this on YouTube.  Any astute 15-year-old kid that did well in grade 10 physics could refute this nonsense and prove it is not true by working with a test setup on a bench...."

Really, you don't understand it, and cant make it work because you don't understand it, so the first thing you do is criticize. A Natural reaction for people that don't understand! Natural for people that don't and or cant grasp Ideas and others Opinions that they have come to from their own Research, Deductions and Experiments.

My point is, for many years, I have shown effects and operations in devices that are IMPOSSIBLE in any Transformer using Your Conventional theories. People in History that you seem to idolise, only after death, that also have shown the same or similar effects and operations in devices that are IMPOSSIBLE in any Transformer using Your Conventional theories! And yet, here in this forum, you try to replicate, learn from and also at the same time build your own working units that NEVER WORK!

These behaviours are doomed for eternal failures and frustration. Behaviours that will endlessly ensure that you pay for Gas at the Bowser, Electricity at the Meter and in one hundred years time it will still not have changed!

Here in this forum, I have left Ideas, I hope I have sparked someone's intuition, helped others looking for answers and anything else that may be beneficial. Magnet Myths and Misconceptions will always exist well beyond the lifetime of this forum!

I will leave you with this: "When a Transformer is loaded, there is a NET ZERO Magnetic Field. This means the Ampere Turns on the primary are equal but opposite to the Ampere Turns on the secondary, or close to it."

Why? Why is this significant?


More debate is pointless!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 06:25:20 AM
Tinman, kindly show that you can make anything align to the supposed magnetic lines of force in your diagram.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 06:28:31 AM
To be quite honest you people sound like good people, as nearly all are! You're all welcome to your opinions. Your opinions are yours and you have come to them for your own reasons!

MileHigh - You started off criticizing my work: "This is a totally retarded clip and you Chris Sykes should be ashamed for putting crap like this on YouTube.  Any astute 15-year-old kid that did well in grade 10 physics could refute this nonsense and prove it is not true by working with a test setup on a bench...."

Really, you don't understand it, and cant make it work because you don't understand it, so the first thing you do is criticize. A Natural reaction for people that don't understand! Natural for people that don't and or cant grasp Ideas and others Opinions that they have come to from their own Research, Deductions and Experiments.

My point is, for many years, I have shown effects and operations in devices that are IMPOSSIBLE in any Transformer using Your Conventional theories. People in History that you seem to idolise, only after death, that also have shown the same or similar effects and operations in devices that are IMPOSSIBLE in any Transformer using Your Conventional theories! And yet, here in this forum, you try to replicate, learn from and also at the same time build your own working units that NEVER WORK!

These behaviours are doomed for eternal failures and frustration. Behaviours that will endlessly ensure that you pay for Gas at the Bowser, Electricity at the Meter and in one hundred years time it will still not have changed!

Here in this forum, I have left Ideas, I hope I have sparked someone's intuition, helped others looking for answers and anything else that may be beneficial. Magnet Myths and Misconceptions will always exist well beyond the lifetime of this forum!

I will leave you with this: "When a Transformer is loaded, there is a NET ZERO Magnetic Field. This means the Ampere Turns on the primary are equal but opposite to the Ampere Turns on the secondary, or close to it."

Why? Why is this significant?
In an ideal transformer "close to it" applies. This is ordinary and expected behavior of a transformer.  It's a good thing too, because otherwise transformers would have to be much larger.  Why do you think this ordinary and expected behavior is special?
Quote


More debate is pointless!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 06:33:53 AM
Kindly show that you can make anything align to the supposed magnetic lines of force in your diagram.
Are you refering to me Mark?
First up,there are NO magnetic field lines of force-only a magnetic field.The strength of that field is as i have pictured it in my diagram. I can see once again i will be spending my time on something you could perform your self.No feromagnetic materia is attracted(or has a very weak attraction) to the center of a magnet where my lines cross.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 07:01:45 AM
@MarkE

I would like you to take some time and draw up an electromagnet the shape of a rod magnet-say 3 inches long and 1/2 inch in diameter for the core material. This will of course have the conductive wire wrapped around it. You will need 3 pictures/diagrams of this very same electromagnet. I would then like you to show the magnetic field building up around that electromagnet in three stages from the instant a current is applied to the inductor-i want to see this magnetic field build around the inductor. I know this happens at or close to the speed of light,but lets devide that by 3.
So we will have in the first diagram the field just starting to emerge,then the second diagram will show it half way built to its full potential,and the third will show the full field and strength of that field. I will then show and explain why there is no magnetic field at the cenetr point of that inductor/electromagnet between the two pole's.

I have done many experiments for you and others,so i hope you can take the time to draw these 3 simple diagrams.

P.S-you may use your fictional lines of force,and flow arrows for this experiment.

Brad
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 08:12:31 AM
Are you refering to me Mark?
First up,there are NO magnetic field lines of force-only a magnetic field.The strength of that field is as i have pictured it in my diagram. I can see once again i will be spending my time on something you could perform your self.No feromagnetic materia is attracted(or has a very weak attraction) to the center of a magnet where my lines cross.
So what denotes the intensity and orientation of the field in your diagram?  Is intensity the  distance from the dipole axis?

As to the claim: 
Quote
Quote
No feromagnetic materia is attracted(or has a very weak attraction) to the center of a magnet where my lines cross.
I can suggest several tests that will demonstrate that the field produced by your magnet is in fact quite strong in that region.  Here is one:

Take a piece of paper and an ordinary compass outside the strong influence of any magnets.  Mark on the paper the two compass axes:  North-South and East-West.  Next move the compass away and place a dipole magnet that is at least four times as long as the compass diameter and place that magnet on the East-West line on your paper.  Now, place the compass near the mid point of your magnet.  Does the compass return to align to the North-South line on your paper as it did when it was outside the influence of your magnet?  If as you assert the magnetic field strength has fallen to zero in that region, what is holding your compass pointing along the East - West line?  Move the magnet away from the compass.  Does the compass now return to aligning to the North-South line?  What can we conclude from the fact that the compass aligns to magnet axis that is perpendicular to the earth's magnetic North-South line even smack in the middle of the magnet where you contend the field strength has fallen to zero?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 09:36:57 AM
So what denotes the intensity and orientation of the field in your diagram?  Is intensity the  distance from the dipole axis?


Take a piece of paper and an ordinary compass outside the strong influence of any magnets.  Mark on the paper the two compass axes:  North-South and East-West.  Next move the compass away and place a dipole magnet that is at least four times as long as the compass diameter and place that magnet on the East-West line on your paper.  Now, place the compass near the mid point of your magnet.  Does the compass return to align to the North-South line on your paper as it did when it was outside the influence of your magnet?  If as you assert the magnetic field strength has fallen to zero in that region, what is holding your compass pointing along the East - West line?  Move the magnet away from the compass.  Does the compass now return to aligning to the North-South line?  What can we conclude from the fact that the compass aligns to magnet axis that is perpendicular to the earth's magnetic North-South line even smack in the middle of the magnet where you contend the field strength has fallen to zero?
I already answered that question,and you either didnt read my reply,or once gain you are trying to push my buttons-so to speak.

Once again,which end of the compass needle would point to a region that has no magnetic field? The compass needles magnetic poles are simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet-regardless of how far away each pole may be. I can get a compass needle to swing toward a magnets pole over a foot away-so once again,your experiment is nul and void.

Now ,are you going to take the time and draw those 3 diagrams i requested from you?. Do you have the time to do that,as you expect people like me to have the time to try different experiments for you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 10:30:14 AM
I would also like to add that an electromagnets field shape is a little different due to the magnetic field produced around the conducting wire,and is more of a peanut shape-see pic bellow. Due to the magnetic field around the conducting wire,the field at the center of the magnets core(between each pole end) ,dose not completely fold back into the core.The region circled in green represents the strongest field concentration in an electromagnet,and is not confined within the core like a PM's field is at the same point.

Edit-the field shape line actually looks more black than blue,but it is the peanut/dog bone shapes line.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 11:04:02 AM
I already answered that question,and you either didnt read my reply,or once gain you are trying to push my buttons-so to speak.

Once again,which end of the compass needle would point to a region that has no magnetic field? The compass needles magnetic poles are simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet-regardless of how far away each pole may be. I can get a compass needle to swing toward a magnets pole over a foot away-so once again,your experiment is nul and void.

Now ,are you going to take the time and draw those 3 diagrams i requested from you?. Do you have the time to do that,as you expect people like me to have the time to try different experiments for you.
Tinman if the magnetic field were null at the dipole center as the Figure 8 claim requires then there would be nothing opposing the earth's magnetic field and the compass needle would align to the earth's field perpendicular to the dipole that is on the east-west line.  Try the experiment.  You will find that the conventional view prevails. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 11:15:13 AM
Tinman if the magnetic field were null at the dipole center as the Figure 8 claim requires then there would be nothing opposing the earth's magnetic field and the compass needle would align to the earth's field perpendicular to the dipole that is on the east-west line.  Try the experiment.  You will find that the conventional view prevails.
Like i said-the compass needle is only being attracted to the strongest magnetic attraction force/fields. Of course if i move the PM far enough away,the needle will point to magnetic north,otherwise we'd have a compass that points to every ones magnets. Im guessing at this point you are not going to draw the three simple diagrams i asked of you,despit the fact that i have done endless experiments for you and others,not to mention the cash forked out. How much time would it take you to do this? If three is to much,then draw just one electromagnet and it's(what you call)field lines,and flow direction arrows.-->Is this to much to ask?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 12:41:18 PM
@MarkE

I would like you to take some time and draw up an electromagnet the shape of a rod magnet-say 3 inches long and 1/2 inch in diameter for the core material. This will of course have the conductive wire wrapped around it. You will need 3 pictures/diagrams of this very same electromagnet. I would then like you to show the magnetic field building up around that electromagnet in three stages from the instant a current is applied to the inductor-i want to see this magnetic field build around the inductor. I know this happens at or close to the speed of light,but lets devide that by 3.
So we will have in the first diagram the field just starting to emerge,then the second diagram will show it half way built to its full potential,and the third will show the full field and strength of that field. I will then show and explain why there is no magnetic field at the cenetr point of that inductor/electromagnet between the two pole's.

I have done many experiments for you and others,so i hope you can take the time to draw these 3 simple diagrams.

P.S-you may use your fictional lines of force,and flow arrows for this experiment.

Brad
Depending on what is used for the core, the timescale will have to be much, much longer to see anything worthwhile.  We cannot instantaneously change the current in any circuit.  We can apply voltages with very high dV/dt's and once the voltage builds to a large value then the di/dt can become big.  The current will then build as long as we allow until ultimately being limited by the combined coil and circuit resistance.  Depending on the core material, the net magnetic field will either track the current (air core, or approximately with high resistance core), or lag due to eddy currents.  Both situations are depicted below.  If you are concerned with transmission line effects, then a wound coil masks those.  If you want to see something interesting in ns time frames then modeling a microstrip trace over a ground plane will do the job.  If you are going to measure transmission line effects at ns and ps scales then you will need an expensive time domain reflectometer.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 12:48:16 PM
Like i said-the compass needle is only being attracted to the strongest magnetic attraction force/fields.
No the compass needle is acted upon by the vector sum of all fields it is exposed to.  Any misalignment with the net field imposes a torque on the compass needle that in the steady state it will closely align.
Quote
Of course if i move the PM far enough away,the needle will point to magnetic north,otherwise we'd have a compass that points to every ones magnets.
Which is exactly why an experiment where we place the test magnet orthogonally to the earth's magnetic north-south line.
Quote
Im guessing at this point you are not going to draw the three simple diagrams i asked of you,despit the fact that i have done endless experiments for you and others,not to mention the cash forked out. How much time would it take you to do this? If three is to much,then draw just one electromagnet and it's(what you call)field lines,and flow direction arrows.-->Is this to much to ask?.
Done in the post above.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 01:08:07 PM
So the below pic is depicting the magnetic field as you know it?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 01:19:19 PM
So the below pic is depicting the magnetic field as you know it?
As it is for a solenoid coil or bar or cylinder PM magnet magnetized through its legnth.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 01:28:11 PM
As it is for a solenoid coil or bar or cylinder PM magnet magnetized through its legnth.
Below is a pic,and we have a thin pancake coil that can slide from one end of the electromagnet to the other(electromagnet passes through the center of the pancake coil). We are supplying the electromagnet with a DC wave current(like an AC wave,but with a 0 to 6 volt P/P) Where would the maximum voltage(maximum amplitude) be achieved over the 100 ohm resistor- point A,point B or point C.?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 01:47:20 PM
Below is a pic,and we have a thin pancake coil that can slide from one end of the electromagnet to the other(electromagnet passes through the center of the pancake coil). We are supplying the electromagnet with a DC wave current(like an AC wave,but with a 0 to 6 volt P/P) Where would the maximum voltage(maximum amplitude) be achieved over the 100 ohm resistor- point A,point B or point C.?
You have built a transformer.  The coupling coefficient will be highest at the center of the dipole where the magnetic field is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the pick-up coil as opposed to the ends where the field curls substantially.  Depending on the time scale, there could be a big difference between the 0-6V-0 ... voltage waveform and the current waveform.  As to where you will get the maximum reading across a 100 Ohm or any other specific value resistor load depends on among other things the impedance match between that resistor and the reflected impedance back to the power source.  If you want to find out where the field is the strongest, then you need a variable resistor load.  You would then adjust that resistance to find the maximum power point at each location and then compare those power levels to find where the coupling is greatest.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 01:59:42 PM
You have built a transformer.  The coupling coefficient will be highest at the center of the dipole where the magnetic field is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the pick-up coil as opposed to the ends where the field curls substantially.  Depending on the time scale, there could be a big difference between the 0-6V-0 ... voltage waveform and the current waveform.  As to where you will get the maximum reading across a 100 Ohm or any other specific value resistor load depends on among other things the impedance match between that resistor and the reflected impedance back to the power source.  If you want to find out where the field is the strongest, then you need a variable resistor load.  You would then adjust that resistance to find the maximum power point at each location and then compare those power levels to find where the coupling is greatest.
Cool
Now please tell me why we generate no power from an inductor if we place the core of that inductor in the center of a magnets dipole on a rotor. So picture a rotor with PM's around it so as the dipole center of the magnets are in the center of the perimeter of the rotor,and we would have what we know as north on the top surface of the rotor,and south on the under side of the rotor.If the magnetic field is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the pick-up coil as you stated,why is no power produced by the inductor/generating coil?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 02:02:38 PM
You have built a transformer. 
Yes,i know i have built a transformer. But this one we can move the secondary along the field produced by the primary.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 04, 2015, 03:52:48 PM
Below is a pic,and we have a thin pancake coil that can slide from one end of the electromagnet to the other(electromagnet passes through the center of the pancake coil). We are supplying the electromagnet with a DC wave current(like an AC wave,but with a 0 to 6 volt P/P) Where would the maximum voltage(maximum amplitude) be achieved over the 100 ohm resistor- point A,point B or point C.?

You will obtain the highest voltage reading at point B, but not because of maximal coupling. It comes down to net flux.

At the ends of the coil, positions A and C, the net flux passing through your pickup coil will be significantly lower than what passes through in the middle. The reason being because at the ends, the curling flux has not diverged that much, and most of it will pass through the pickup coil. Therefore, there will be two flux paths (roughly the same net magnitude) passing through the pickup coil, but in opposing directions, largely canceling each other out.

In the middle position point B, the flux density outside the coil is significantly lower (due to the curl) so there will be a higher net flux passing through the pickup coil in this case.

In both cases, all the flux generated within the coil diameter passes through the pickup coil.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 04, 2015, 05:52:42 PM
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428891/#msg428891

@MileHigh,

I can help! I live on Calle Hidalgo in Jaco, Costa Rica. Try and bring your own cowardly ass down here for a fist fight!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 06:03:16 PM
@MileHigh,

I can help! I live on Calle Hidalgo in Jaco, Costa Rica. Try and bring your own cowardly ass down here for a fist fight!

http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428894/#msg428894
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on January 04, 2015, 06:11:11 PM
We need to understand where we are trying to get energy from.

What is the geometric configuration of a field line.

What are eddy currents and how do they react to the field line.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 06:23:12 PM
Tinman:

Good on you for stating the obvious:  There is no Bloch Wall at the center of a magnet.

You stated that there is no magnetic field alongside the center of a long bar magnet.  MarkE showed you how you can do a compass test to confirm that there is a magnetic field there.  I think the mistake that you are making is that you will not feel any attraction at the center of a long bar magnet if you place a piece of ferrite or metal in that place.  You can have situations where there is no attraction felt and there still is a magnetic field present.  It's because the magnetic field is parallel to the magnet and there is no net pull towards either pole on the ferrite or piece of metal.  It's the same thing for the iron filings.  The majority of the iron filings are not attracted to either pole of the magnet.  The majority of the iron filings experience what looks like a linear magnetic field.  They line up with the magnetic field to "fall" into their position of minimum magnetic potential energy but they are not pulled towards either pole.

Here are two clips about deriving the magnetic field for a solenoid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXVuHpUucc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXVuHpUucc)

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 06:35:47 PM
Chris:

I guess that you have left this thread.  I just wanted to comment again how sad it is that you can only draw parallels to other situations to supposedly back up your claim that there is a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  It even started to get loopy when you showed pictures of ferrofluid in action as "proof" of the existence of a Bloch wall.

You really did not advance your case at all.  What you tried to show was not scientific at all, and yet you claimed that you were the one being scientific.

You have built up walls around yourself with respect to this Bloch Wall nonsense.  I asked you repeatedly to explain what was going on in the magnet itself and you failed to do that.

This reminds me of cases where someone's understanding of a coil has been corrupted by the Bedini gang.  You try to explain to them what is going on when the coil discharges and they just put their blinders on and cover their ears and say, "radiant energy."  Or they say things like the pulse is "just voltage and no current" when in fact by definition the pulse is a pulse of current.

Do what you want to do, but at this point it's almost like you are a poster boy for how to go about doing things the wrong way.  You have been corrupted by non-scientific cheap pulp pseudoscience and that's most unfortunate.

The longer you keep playing with circuits, the more you start to see how things fit less and less into your electronics pseudoscience world.  Hopefully one day that will hit critical mass and you will realize the error of your ways.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on January 04, 2015, 07:11:13 PM
If electrons spin around the magnetic field line they cannot run together side by side if spinning in the same direction.
It works like gears, the spin induces eddy currents that will allow the fields to run side by side.

So what happens if we create a gen that allows the earths magnetic field to lock onto the gen.

If the configuration is correct we can get a lock, then we can pull energy from the planets magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 04, 2015, 07:18:00 PM
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428894/#msg428894

Let me further advise you Mister "No Bloch Wall", that I am a "Grand Master" of Chinese "White Crane" school of internal boxing, and have won most of my fights!


'Most Hated Man on the Internet' found in Fresno:
  by KFSN – Fresno  3:35 mins 


Charles C. Johnson has won awards for his reporting, but he's also been ridiculed in the mainstream media. A New York Times columnist recently called him a "Troll on Steroids".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on January 04, 2015, 07:30:35 PM
You guy's need to quit squabbling like school children an pay attention.
Sit up straight and pay attention before you get sent to the principles office.

Pay attention and use your head for something besides a hat rack.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dave45 on January 04, 2015, 08:07:12 PM
What we end up with is north field lines with virtual souths and south field lines with virtual norths at each end of a magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 08:36:53 PM
Cool
Now please tell me why we generate no power from an inductor if we place the core of that inductor in the center of a magnets dipole on a rotor. So picture a rotor with PM's around it so as the dipole center of the magnets are in the center of the perimeter of the rotor,and we would have what we know as north on the top surface of the rotor,and south on the under side of the rotor.If the magnetic field is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the pick-up coil as you stated,why is no power produced by the inductor/generating coil?.
But you do.  Maxwell's equations work very very well.  If you have an experiment that is doing odd things we can look at that experiment and see what is going on with it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 04, 2015, 09:22:00 PM
Tinman:

Good on you for stating the obvious:  There is no Bloch Wall at the center of a magnet.

  You can have situations where there is no attraction felt and there still is a magnetic field present.  It's because the magnetic field is parallel to the magnet and there is no net pull towards either pole on the ferrite or piece of metal. 

MileHigh
A magnetic field that dose not attract metal or ferrite ???
This is one magical magnetic field you guys have here ;) And it cannot induce magnetic flux into an inductor either-to produce power-->although Mark seems to think it can. Well we will have a look at that next weekend,but now !once again! i must hit the road for a few days.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 11:09:35 PM
We'll see you when you get back.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 05, 2015, 05:53:37 AM
@MileHigh,

"Simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

The Bloch Wall is more then a parallel field and has "Lateral Dimensions" measured by neutron scattering.

Once again the definition"

"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch".

A NARROW REGION! This area has a width and thickness and has been measured with great accuracy. Below can you see where it measures at 2um from neutron scattering experiments. I can produce volumes of test data to support this fact. MileHigh, MarkE and TinselKoala are three bullshit peas in a pod..
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 05, 2015, 12:41:25 PM
I need one of them ipads for when im on the road ,this phone screen to bloody small.
I have come up with a doozy idea as to how we can see the exact field shape of a PM. This I will do right after theo's free heat generating bismuth do'hicky experiment..I am about 1100km away from my workshop ATM, but should be home by the weekend, when I will whip up a quick demo of the non generating field.
@MarkE
What are the arrows on the field lines supose to represent-the flow of what?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2015, 01:01:31 PM
I see you are still doing what you do best, Synchro: Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

See if you can find such a photomicrograph that shows a "Bloch Wall" running along the center of a permanent magnet. Then try to explain why, when you cut a PM in half along the center, you get NOT two "monopole" magnets but rather two ordinary bipolar magnets, each with what you wrongly call a "Bloch wall" in their centers. It's a funny kind of "wall" that splits and moves just because you have cut along where you thought it was.

As MH told you earlier, Bloch walls are actually just what your photomicrographs show: Domain boundaries. And he has also told you the truth: In Permanent Magnets, most of the domains are oriented in the _same direction_ , not randomly like the images you have presented. Bloch walls exist between all the tiny magnetic domains that are randomly oriented, not along the "equator" of permanent magnets.


@MileHigh,

"Simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

The Bloch Wall is more then a parallel field and has "Lateral Dimensions" measured by neutron scattering.

Once again the definition"

"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch".

A NARROW REGION! This area has a width and thickness and has been measured with great accuracy. Below can you see where it measures at 2um from neutron scattering experiments. I can produce volumes of test data to support this fact. MileHigh, MarkE and TinselKoala are three bullshit peas in a pod..
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 05, 2015, 01:17:46 PM



    Koala,
            If we made a hypothetical permanent magnet out of individual atoms would
they all line up or would there be a "fault" somewhere in the middle?
                         John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: dieter on January 05, 2015, 03:06:20 PM
An other aspect that I want to mention is:


there are two modes of activity of permanent magnets. One is the Seeking mode and the other one is the Jet Stream mode. A pole is always trying to connect to an opposite pole. If it can't, it will use the surrounding air to link with its own opposite pole. Which is very "unsatisfying". This way the common iron filing images are made.


This trough-the-air-link is so unsatisfying that the poles keep on seeking for a better link.


If we introduce a piece of iron now, stick it to one pole, the pole loves the permeability and seeks for opposite poles in every corner of the iron.
We stick a nail to the other end of the iron, the pole now even seeks in the entire nail, although airgaps and distance naturally lower the strength.
We stick a 2nd magnet to the iron, with the same pole. Now they share the iron, are both seeking, the nail sticks more. They do not want to be close to one another, but basicly they share the iron in their seeking.


Now we remove one magnet , turn it around and stick it to the iron with the other pole. Surprise. No seeking anymore. The nail drops off. The magnets build a rather compact path, now they're in Jet stream mode. Most of the iron became rather unmagnetical, IF both magnets have the same strength.


When you put two magnets on oneanother, NS NS, then they unite to one magnet the Bloch wall is located in the middle between them.


When you put them together NS SN, then the Bloch walls of the two remain in place.


BR
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 03:20:38 PM
I need one of them ipads for when im on the road ,this phone screen to bloody small.
I have come up with a doozy idea as to how we can see the exact field shape of a PM. This I will do right after theo's free heat generating bismuth do'hicky experiment..I am about 1100km away from my workshop ATM, but should be home by the weekend, when I will whip up a quick demo of the non generating field.
@MarkE
What are the arrows on the field lines supose to represent-the flow of what?
They indicate orientation.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 03:24:22 PM


    Koala,
            If we made a hypothetical permanent magnet out of individual atoms would
they all line up or would there be a "fault" somewhere in the middle?
                         John.
If one could construct perfectly stacked crystals of magnetic material, then the domain walls would be lined up like paving stones.  If the material were not magnetized, then the orientation of each domain would be randomly rotated.  Magnetizing the material would progressively bring the domains into greater and greater alignment.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2015, 06:12:44 PM


    Koala,
            If we made a hypothetical permanent magnet out of individual atoms would
they all line up or would there be a "fault" somewhere in the middle?
                         John.

See MarkE's response above. With domains in the material, the "paving stones", which are much larger than individual atoms, you get something like this:

N-S|N-S|N-S|.... and so on, like a chain of tiny magnets all stuck together. Each "N-S" pair represents a single "paving stone" and the "|" symbol represents a true Bloch wall, as according to the definition, between the domains, I think. No "Bloch wall" _inside_ the individual domains, but Bloch walls between them, just as in the definition of the Bloch wall and in Synchro's photomicrograph images of randomly-aligned domains. And no special "Bloch wall" at the "equator" of a permanent magnet made up of mostly aligned domains. If there is a bulk, macroscopic "Bloch wall" anywhere, it is at the junction of _two_ permanent magnets stuck together in the usual way by mutual attraction of unlike poles. This does not represent the situation at the "waist" of an individual permanent magnet, though.

For individual atoms the magnetic dipole is formed by the spin of unpaired electrons in specific outer shells (electron orbitals). "Unpaired" because the normal pairing of opposite-spinning electrons in a single orbital causes their fields to cancel.  The "domain" is a much larger region where the atoms are aligned so that all or most of the electron spins are in the same direction, reinforcing each other and creating "mini-permanent magnets" which are the domains themselves. In an unmagnetized material these domains are themselves randomly oriented, even though within the domains the individual unpaired electron spins of the atoms concerned are aligned. To magnetize such a material one brings the domains into alignment like MarkE's paving stones, by any of a number of means. You can physically align a piece of the material to an external field, even the Earth's relatively weak field, and start aligning domains by striking the stuff with a hammer, even. Or you can supply a stronger pulsed external field and align the domains that way. In a "soft" magnetic material the domains are easy to align and easy to "unalign" again. In a "hard" material they stay aligned even when the original aligning field is removed.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 05, 2015, 06:25:48 PM
I need one of them ipads for when im on the road ,this phone screen to bloody small.
I have come up with a doozy idea as to how we can see the exact field shape of a PM. This I will do right after theo's free heat generating bismuth do'hicky experiment..I am about 1100km away from my workshop ATM, but should be home by the weekend, when I will whip up a quick demo of the non generating field.
@MarkE
What are the arrows on the field lines supose to represent-the flow of what?
As MarkE said, they represent "orientation", and the concentration represents "strength". But orientation of what? Strength of what? As you know, the field lines are just a convenient way of representing "something" and have no "real" existence, just like the elevation lines on a topographical map. On the topo map, the elevation contours tell you how steep the slope is in reality (by their 'bunching up') and the tiny numbers along them tell you the direction of the slope: that is, they tell you which way and how fast a "test particle" like a beachball will roll in the real terrain. For magnetic field lines, the arrow tells you in which direction a "test particle" -- here a hypothetical "magnetic monopole" -- would move, or how a tiny bipolar magnet like a compass needle would align, and the concentration or bunching of the field lines tell you how strongly such a test particle would move.  The magnetic field doesn't actually "flow", just as nothing flows on a topo map, and just as a road doesn't "go" anywhere. Test particles like beachballs, monopole magnetic particles, and road-trains "flow" along the real stationary elevation change, the stationary field lines, and the stationary road.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 05, 2015, 06:58:11 PM
If one could construct perfectly stacked crystals of magnetic material, then the domain walls would be lined up like paving stones.  If the material were not magnetized, then the orientation of each domain would be randomly rotated.  Magnetizing the material would progressively bring the domains into greater and greater alignment.

Just to add a bit to what Mark said:  If you can imagine an "ideal" metallic crystal lattice, it would have no imperfections at all.  That means a perfect 3D arrangement of atoms, like a theoretical perfect diamond.  So you have your "paving stones" of individual magnetic domains within this "perfect diamond."  As you apply a perfectly uniform magnetic field to the paving stones, then you would start to get the merging of individual magnetic domains into larger magnetic domains.  In other words, the Bloch walls between individual magnetic domains would start to disappear.  At the limit, the entire magnetic crystal lattice would become a single domain.  That would represent a perfectly magnetized small crystal of metallic atoms where every single atomic magnetic dipole has the same orientation.

As was stated, every magnet has millions or billions of magnetic domains where the majority of the magnetic domains are oriented in the same direction.  Every magnet is not not a perfect metallic crystal lattice.  That is a description of the fine-grained architecture of any magnet.

Now, when it comes to the deluded folks that talk about a "Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet," they never even discuss the fine-grained architecture of a magnet.  It's possible that they agree with the fine-grained architecture.  It's just as possible that they are not even thinking about this because they never mention it.  So ignorance strikes again.

So now let's shift our discussion to the incorrect notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  What happens at this falsely imagined Bloch wall?   Well, as you can see I asked but I was unable to get a straight answer.

Here is a regular magnet:   [S>>>>>N]  The chevrons ('arrows') represent the majority of the magnetic domains lined up in the same direction.

Here is what I can only imagine that a magnet with a Bloch wall at the center looks like because the people that claim there is a Bloch wall at the center won't tell me:   [S>>>>|<<<<S]

As you can see, I am suggesting that the magnetic domains change direction by 180 degrees for a hypothetical Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.   The problem is that this makes no sense at all, and represents two sets of magnetic domains in opposition to each other resulting in mostly self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

This whole notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a magnet is a ridiculous nonsensical farce and is just another kind of "delayed Lenz effect" sickness.  It's just a mixture of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity masquerading as "a new alternative way of looking at things."

When John Bedini explains to a crowd of grown men gathered around him at a conference that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet and they all just nod in agreement, then he knows that he has bunch of suckers standing around him and chances are he can say just about anything to them so that they end up buying another useless DVD.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 05, 2015, 07:35:28 PM
I see you are still doing what you do best, Synchro: Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

See if you can find such a photomicrograph that shows a "Bloch Wall" running along the center of a permanent magnet. Then try to explain why, when you cut a PM in half along the center, you get NOT two "monopole" magnets but rather two ordinary bipolar magnets, each with what you wrongly call a "Bloch wall" in their centers. It's a funny kind of "wall" that splits and moves just because you have cut along where you thought it was.

As MH told you earlier, Bloch walls are actually just what your photomicrographs show: Domain boundaries. And he has also told you the truth: In Permanent Magnets, most of the domains are oriented in the _same direction_ , not randomly like the images you have presented. Bloch walls exist between all the tiny magnetic domains that are randomly oriented, not along the "equator" of permanent magnets.

@TinselKoala,


Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

"Ibid"  from an eccentric "Trash Harvester"!

Let's see what you make of it Einstien!

Abstract: 

"Domain-wall structure in thin films with perpendicular anisotropy: Magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry study".

 "Ferromagnetic domain patterns and three-dimensional domain-wall configurations in thin CoCrPt films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy were studied in detail by combining magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry with micromagnetic simulations. With the first method, lateral dimension of domains with alternative magnetization directions normal to the surface and separated by domain walls in 20-nm-thick CoCrPt films were determined in good agreement with micromagnetic simulations. Quantitative analysis of data on reflectometry shows that domain walls consist of a Bloch wall in the center of the thin film, which is gradually transformed into a pair of Néel caps at the surfaces. The width and in-depth thickness of the Bloch wall element, transition region, and Néel caps are found consistent with micromagnetic calculations. A complex structure of domain walls serves to compromise a competition between exchange interactions, keeping spins parallel, magnetic anisotropy orienting magnetization normal to the surface, and demagnetizing fields, promoting in-plane magnetization. It is shown that the result of such competition strongly depends on the film thickness, and in the thinner CoCrPt film (10 nm thick), simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.054425

1 MorePublished 28 August 2014
Received 9 May 2014
Revised 4 August 2014


©2014 American Physical Society                                              Here's the point:


                                                                           The "Bloch Wall' has physical dimensions:

                                                "Lateral dimensions of the "Bloch Wall" were measured by neutron scattering".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 08:03:02 PM
Just to add a bit to what Mark said:  If you can imagine an "ideal" metallic crystal lattice, it would have no imperfections at all.  That means a perfect 3D arrangement of atoms, like a theoretical perfect diamond.  So you have your "paving stones" of individual magnetic domains within this "perfect diamond."  As you apply a perfectly uniform magnetic field to the paving stones, then you would start to get the merging of individual magnetic domains into larger magnetic domains.  In other words, the Bloch walls between individual magnetic domains would start to disappear.  At the limit, the entire magnetic crystal lattice would become a single domain.  That would represent a perfectly magnetized small crystal of metallic atoms where every single atomic magnetic dipole has the same orientation.

As was stated, every magnet has millions or billions of magnetic domains where the majority of the magnetic domains are oriented in the same direction.  Every magnet is not not a perfect metallic crystal lattice.  That is a description of the fine-grained architecture of any magnet.

Now, when it comes to the deluded folks that talk about a "Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet," they never even discuss the fine-grained architecture of a magnet.  It's possible that they agree with the fine-grained architecture.  It's just as possible that they are not even thinking about this because they never mention it.  So ignorance strikes again.

So now let's shift our discussion to the incorrect notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  What happens at this falsely imagined Bloch wall?   Well, as you can see I asked but I was unable to get a straight answer.

Here is a regular magnet:   [S>>>>>N]  The chevrons ('arrows') represent the majority of the magnetic domains lined up in the same direction.

Here is what I can only imagine that a magnet with a Bloch wall at the center looks like because the people that claim there is a Bloch wall at the center won't tell me:   [S>>>>|<<<<S]

As you can see, I am suggesting that the magnetic domains change direction by 180 degrees for a hypothetical Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.   The problem is that this makes no sense at all, and represents two sets of magnetic domains in opposition to each other resulting in mostly self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

This whole notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a magnet is a ridiculous nonsensical farce and is just another kind of "delayed Lenz effect" sickness.  It's just a mixture of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity masquerading as "a new alternative way of looking at things."

When John Bedini explains to a crowd of grown men gathered around him at a conference that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet and they all just nod in agreement, then he knows that he has bunch of suckers standing around him and chances are he can say just about anything to them so that they end up buying another useless DVD.

MileHigh
Has the DVD been "purified" by John Bedini's permanent magnet CD/DVD purifier?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 08:05:40 PM
@TinselKoala,


Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

"Ibid"  from an eccentric "Trash Harvester"!

Let's see what you make of it Einstien!

Abstract: 

"Domain-wall structure in thin films with perpendicular anisotropy: Magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry study".

 "Ferromagnetic domain patterns and three-dimensional domain-wall configurations in thin CoCrPt films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy were studied in detail by combining magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry with micromagnetic simulations. With the first method, lateral dimension of domains with alternative magnetization directions normal to the surface and separated by domain walls in 20-nm-thick CoCrPt films were determined in good agreement with micromagnetic simulations. Quantitative analysis of data on reflectometry shows that domain walls consist of a Bloch wall in the center of the thin film, which is gradually transformed into a pair of Néel caps at the surfaces. The width and in-depth thickness of the Bloch wall element, transition region, and Néel caps are found consistent with micromagnetic calculations. A complex structure of domain walls serves to compromise a competition between exchange interactions, keeping spins parallel, magnetic anisotropy orienting magnetization normal to the surface, and demagnetizing fields, promoting in-plane magnetization. It is shown that the result of such competition strongly depends on the film thickness, and in the thinner CoCrPt film (10 nm thick), simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.054425

1 MorePublished 28 August 2014
Received 9 May 2014
Revised 4 August 2014


©2014 American Physical Society                                              Here's the point:


                                                                           The "Bloch Wall' has physical dimensions:

                                                "Lateral dimensions of the "Bloch Wall" were measured by neutron scattering".
How do you think that anything in that cited quotation supports the idea of a "magnetic equator" in a permanent or electromagnet?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 05, 2015, 08:53:49 PM
How do you think that anything in that cited quotation supports the idea of a "magnetic equator" in a permanent or electromagnet?

@MarkE,

Why not ask how it effects the price of camel milk in Timbuktu. Just another "Screwball"! Find how it does that on your own!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 05, 2015, 09:04:48 PM
@MarkE,

Why not ask how it effects the price of camel milk in Timbuktu. Just another "Screwball"! Find how it does that on your own!

I think that we can interpret that as an admission that you were wrong about the Bloch wall being at the center of a bar magnet.  It looks like you have been doing some serious online research about Bloch walls and did not find any references from legitimate sources to back up the claim that a Bloch wall exists at the center of a bar magnet.

Beyond that, all that you really have to do is put your brain in gear and THINK and understand to agree with the fact that there is no Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  The entire idea is nonsensical.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 05, 2015, 10:08:51 PM


@TinselKoala, @MarkE, @MileHigh - I repeat what I said - Modern Science in different disciplines, today, don't agree with your Myths and Misconceptions on Magnets!

You are wrong about Magnets! Period.

No amount of Verbal Debate will prove other wise. East and West on a Compass represent the Equator just in-case previous diagrams have you confused.

I suggest you take some Physics 101 Classes or Astro-Physics 101!!!

Your Science is out-dated and incorrect!

Stop PREACHING Bad Science! Your opinions are yours! Stop trying to inject your opinions into people. Opinions are NOT SCIENCE!!!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 10:11:43 PM
@MarkE,

Why not ask how it effects the price of camel milk in Timbuktu. Just another "Screwball"! Find how it does that on your own!
Kindly allow me to rephrase:  Please materially connect the contents of the citation to what you are attempting to argue.

Quote
Quote
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #413 on: Today at 07:35:28 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 01:01:31 PM

    I see you are still doing what you do best, Synchro: Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

    See if you can find such a photomicrograph that shows a "Bloch Wall" running along the center of a permanent magnet. Then try to explain why, when you cut a PM in half along the center, you get NOT two "monopole" magnets but rather two ordinary bipolar magnets, each with what you wrongly call a "Bloch wall" in their centers. It's a funny kind of "wall" that splits and moves just because you have cut along where you thought it was.

    As MH told you earlier, Bloch walls are actually just what your photomicrographs show: Domain boundaries. And he has also told you the truth: In Permanent Magnets, most of the domains are oriented in the _same direction_ , not randomly like the images you have presented. Bloch walls exist between all the tiny magnetic domains that are randomly oriented, not along the "equator" of permanent magnets.


@TinselKoala,


Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

"Ibid"  from an eccentric "Trash Harvester"!

Let's see what you make of it Einstien!

Abstract:

"Domain-wall structure in thin films with perpendicular anisotropy: Magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry study".

 "Ferromagnetic domain patterns and three-dimensional domain-wall configurations in thin CoCrPt films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy were studied in detail by combining magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry with micromagnetic simulations. With the first method, lateral dimension of domains with alternative magnetization directions normal to the surface and separated by domain walls in 20-nm-thick CoCrPt films were determined in good agreement with micromagnetic simulations. Quantitative analysis of data on reflectometry shows that domain walls consist of a Bloch wall in the center of the thin film, which is gradually transformed into a pair of Néel caps at the surfaces. The width and in-depth thickness of the Bloch wall element, transition region, and Néel caps are found consistent with micromagnetic calculations. A complex structure of domain walls serves to compromise a competition between exchange interactions, keeping spins parallel, magnetic anisotropy orienting magnetization normal to the surface, and demagnetizing fields, promoting in-plane magnetization. It is shown that the result of such competition strongly depends on the film thickness, and in the thinner CoCrPt film (10 nm thick), simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.054425

1 MorePublished 28 August 2014
Received 9 May 2014
Revised 4 August 2014


©2014 American Physical Society                                              Here's the point:


                                                                           The "Bloch Wall' has physical dimensions:

                                                "Lateral dimensions of the "Bloch Wall" were measured by neutron scattering".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 05, 2015, 10:14:54 PM
I think that we can interpret that as an admission that you were wrong about the Bloch wall being at the center of a bar magnet.  It looks like you have been doing some serious online research about Bloch walls and did not find any references from legitimate sources to back up the claim that a Bloch wall exists at the center of a bar magnet.

Beyond that, all that you really have to do is put your brain in gear and THINK and understand to agree with the fact that there is no Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  The entire idea is nonsensical.

@MileHigh,

"This whole notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a magnet is a ridiculous nonsensical farce and is just another kind of "delayed Lenz effect" sickness".

Here you compound your bullshit. Why not include your "Mythbusted" Tesla series bifilar while you're at it?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 10:18:37 PM

@TinselKoala, @MarkE, @MileHigh - I repeat what I said - Modern Science in different disciplines, today, don't agree with your Myths and Misconceptions on Magnets!

You are wrong about Magnets! Period.

No amount of Verbal Debate will prove other wise. East and West on a Compass represent the Equator just in-case previous diagrams have you confused.

I suggest you take some Physics 101 Classes or Astro-Physics 101!!!

Your Science is out-dated and incorrect!

Stop PREACHING Bad Science! Your opinions are yours! Stop trying to inject your opinions into people. Opinions are NOT SCIENCE!!!
A cogent argument goes along the lines of:  Y evidence supports X, or Y evidence refutes X.  Shouting insults on a message board does not make a cogent argument.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 10:20:12 PM
@MileHigh,

"This whole notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a magnet is a ridiculous nonsensical farce and is just another kind of "delayed Lenz effect" sickness".

Here you compound your bullshit. Why not include your "Mythbusted" Tesla series bifilar while you're at it?
Synchro1 is it your belief that a Bloch wall forms around adjacent, aligned magnetic domains?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 05, 2015, 10:55:06 PM
Shouting insults on a message board does not make a cogent argument.

MarkE - No Insults were passed, only FACTS with Supporting Evidence!

A cogent argument goes along the lines of:  Y evidence supports X, or Y evidence refutes X.

Again you provide nothing like a cogent argument! All your arguments are based on is incorrect evidence proven wrong by Modern Science!

Again, this is a pointless debate, providing proof is not enough for those that refute FACTS Backed up by yet more FACTS! Its pointless debating with you!

Some people HELD ONTO the FLAT EARTH THEORY for many years after it was proven wrong as well!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 05, 2015, 11:27:18 PM



   EMJunkie, obviously MarkE needs re-educating to modern scientific standards.
      There must be good education "out there" as indicated by the designers and
 and technicians who build things like medical scanners and things like the LHC,
 these devices must employ flawless magnetics.
    Where should we send him?
                  John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 05, 2015, 11:36:45 PM
EMjunkie/Chris:

Quote
Again, this is a pointless debate, providing proof is not enough for those that refute FACTS Backed up by yet more FACTS! Its pointless debating with you!

It's like you are in a hapless revolving-door spin zone.  You haven't provided any proof at all.  I have asked you repeatedly to discuss a bar magnet itself and to discus the alleged Bloch wall across the center of the magnet and you have avoided that question.  What precisely is the Bloch wall that you are talking about?  Relate the north half, the Bloch wall, and the south half in a coherent technical argument for us.  What is in each half, and what is the Bloch wall?  What does a fly-trough of the magnet look like in comparison to the fly-through that I described.

That's what this is all about and you may as well be pointing at pink elephants when you discuss the Earth's equator and the vortex patterns of cyclones in the two Hemispheres.

So I am still waiting for you to make your case and I presume a lot of other readers are also waiting.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 11:48:31 PM
MarkE - No Insults were passed, only FACTS with Supporting Evidence!

Again you provide nothing like a cogent argument! All your arguments are based on is incorrect evidence proven wrong by Modern Science!

Again, this is a pointless debate, providing proof is not enough for those that refute FACTS Backed up by yet more FACTS! Its pointless debating with you!

Some people HELD ONTO the FLAT EARTH THEORY for many years after it was proven wrong as well!!!
How many times do you need to see that the field alignment through a dipole magnet is all in the same direction before you concede the falsity of this "magnetic equator" idea that you promote?  Alternatively, kindly show a reliable experiment that demonstrates your claim that the field surrounding a dipole magnet loops from each pole through the dipole center instead of continguously from one pole to the other.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 11:49:32 PM


   EMJunkie, obviously MarkE needs re-educating to modern scientific standards.
      There must be good education "out there" as indicated by the designers and
 and technicians who build things like medical scanners and things like the LHC,
 these devices must employ flawless magnetics.
    Where should we send him?
                  John.
Anywhere but Detroit!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 05, 2015, 11:58:55 PM


   EMJunkie, obviously MarkE needs re-educating to modern scientific standards.
      There must be good education "out there" as indicated by the designers and
 and technicians who build things like medical scanners and things like the LHC,
 these devices must employ flawless magnetics.
    Where should we send him?
                  John.

Hi John,

MarkE already has his mind made up, so does MileHigh and no doubt some others reading along - There is nothing wrong with this, except the fact is that they continue to PREACH Science which has been proven wrong for many years now.

They provide no Science to backup their claims, but claim an Imaginary Ride through a Magnet is proof, which can only be considered as delusional Insanity!

They are Nice guys in my opinion however, just stuck in their ways. My Granddad was a bit like this, Bless his soul!

Have a Great Day John ;O)

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 12:08:57 AM
Not that it matters.

Back before the Internet,, yes there was a time when computers used modems that "talked" over the phone line,, anyway,, I played with the magnetic field a fair amount and one of the articles I got off of a BBS was on this Block wall thing and so I went looking.

I played in a friend of mines workshop, he fixed copiers for a living and let me play around in some unused space,, not to mention he let me have any and all parts I wanted of the copiers that were going to be junked.

With copier machines there is this stuff, or maybe was, called TONER, it is made up of very fine metallic spheres covered in carbon black and a plasticizer,, that is what gets fused to the paper in those old machines,, the carbon black and plasticizers that is,,

In the really old machines they also had fussor oil,, this was typically a silicone based oil and when it became contaminated with Toner it was thrown away.

So here I was playing around in the shop when one of my magnets went flying,, guess where it landed,, sure enough fero-fluid before there was any.

Another thing about toner,, being 0.5 microns in diameter and all,, is that it will fly around in the air for a long time,, but you can use a heat lamp to fuse them together and lock in a shape.  Did that for some 3-D magnetic field printing :)

After all that playing around I determined that a few things were not exactly correct,, the magnetic field has a sphere of influence,, this does not mean you are seeing the field per say but what it is doing,, small nit-pic but then when you do other stuff it helps to make more sense out of things.

I never found this Bloch Wall, I did find that a single slice of viewing stuff does not do a very good job of showing all of what is going on,, it provides for an idea of what is going on and that is about it.

Spheres behave similar to but not exactly the same as long'ish fillings,, close but not exact.

There is a region around the midpoint between poles where the two forces of attraction and the two forces of repulsion balance out and show no apparent force of attraction or repulsion when you are using something like a nail or a needle to "feel" this field interaction,, the force is not gone but self canceled in its ability to repel or attract the metal object aka do work on the object,,,, but the force is still there as it was.

Long story short,

is the discussion over the field or over the local area effect from the field?

Hi Webby1,

We are currently debating the science behind a permanent Magnets Equator, also known as the Bloch Wall.

MarkE, MileHigh and TinselKoala say there is No Equator between the Poles of a Permanent Magnet!

Virtually everyone else here is saying there is.

If one can:

1: See it!
2: Measure it!
3: Feel it!

It EXISTS! Period!

The Earth has an Equator because of the Magnetic Field, so a Magnet has an Equator because of its Magnetic Field! Todays Science does not refute this equator in-fact it is supported in several areas in Science. Previous Posts have provided this proof already.

All the best

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 12:31:04 AM
Hi Webby1,

We are currently debating the science behind a permanent Magnets Equator, also known as the Bloch Wall.
No, we are debating your unevidenced claims that:  1) The field around a dipole magnet curls towards its center from each pole. 2) That a Bloch wall occurs at the center of a dipole magnet.
Quote

MarkE, MileHigh and TinselKoala say there is No Equator between the Poles of a Permanent Magnet!
What I argue, and the others do as well is that the field around a dipole magnet runs contiguously from pole to pole.  It exhibits minimum curl and maximum parallelism to the dipole long axis at the dipole long axis midpoint.  The demonstration photographs above demonstrate as much.
Quote

Virtually everyone else here is saying there is.

If one can:

1: See it!
2: Measure it!
3: Feel it!

It EXISTS! Period!
Then you must account for the demonstration photograph above that shows that we see the field is parallel adjacent to the dipole midpoint, we measure the strong curl near the poles, and very little curl near the dipole midpoint, and the compass pointer feels that field gradient as we move it around the dipole magnet.
Quote

The Earth has an Equator because of the Magnetic Field, so a Magnet has an Equator because of its Magnetic Field! Todays Science does not refute this equator in-fact it is supported in several areas in Science. Previous Posts have provided this proof already.

All the best

  Chris
You have so far failed to demonstrate these claims of yours that have been refuted by countless experiments and machines.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 12:52:07 AM
You will obtain the highest voltage reading at point B, but not because of maximal coupling. It comes down to net flux.

At the ends of the coil, positions A and C, the net flux passing through your pickup coil will be significantly lower than what passes through in the middle. The reason being because at the ends, the curling flux has not diverged that much, and most of it will pass through the pickup coil. Therefore, there will be two flux paths (roughly the same net magnitude) passing through the pickup coil, but in opposing directions, largely canceling each other out.

In the middle position point B, the flux density outside the coil is significantly lower (due to the curl) so there will be a higher net flux passing through the pickup coil in this case.

In both cases, all the flux generated within the coil diameter passes through the pickup coil.
Thanks poynt
This of course is exactly what my test setup showed.my uestion would be now is why when the center of a magnet (between the dipole) is passed across an inductors core, no power is generated if this is the point of the largest part of the flux field.MarkE seems to think there will be power generated (unless he misinterpreted my question), but as we know, there is none.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 01:05:58 AM
Thanks poynt
This of course is exactly what my test setup showed.my uestion would be now is why when the center of a magnet (between the dipole) is passed across an inductors core, no power is generated if this is the point of the largest part of the flux field.MarkE seems to think there will be power generated (unless he misinterpreted my question), but as we know, there is none.
Tinman, but of course the transformer works for coils over the middle.  In fact that is where it works the best.  The field there is maximally parallel to the core and perpendicular to the windings.  It is as close to perfect in the middle as it is going to get.  Do you see cost conscious transformer manufacturers keeping windings away from the centers of their cores?  Why do you think they wind contiguously right through the center if power transfer is deficient there?  How about solenoid manufacturers? 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 01:38:16 AM
Tinman, but of course the transformer works for coils over the middle.  In fact that is where it works the best.  The field there is maximally parallel to the core and perpendicular to the windings.  It is as close to perfect in the middle as it is going to get.  Do you see cost conscious transformer manufacturers keeping windings away from the centers of their cores?  Why do you think they wind contiguously right through the center if power transfer is deficient there?  How about solenoid manufacturers?
The later half of my post was in regards to PMs on a rotor, as it was in my post where you answered-but it is.
You pass the center of a pm past an inductors core, and no power is generated. But with this electromagnet test, most power is generated at the center of the magnet (electromagnt)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 06, 2015, 01:42:16 AM
These three guys keep everyone on the same tedious treadmill simply to sidetrack any meaningful discussion. The best approach is just to ignore them. They're just a pack of cheap hustlers making suckers out of the rest of us with their constant and mind numbing distraction.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 02:03:23 AM
How many times do you need to see that the field alignment through a dipole magnet is all in the same direction before you concede the falsity of this "magnetic equator" idea that you promote?  Alternatively, kindly show a reliable experiment that demonstrates your claim that the field surrounding a dipole magnet loops from each pole through the dipole center instead of continguously from one pole to the other.

I could spend hours wording an educational essay but anyone that has been following, will see that every post I have already posted is just that! Instead, I will let a Picture say a Thousand words: (I wonder if you can guess where the equator is?)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 02:15:41 AM
I could spend hours wording an educational essay but anyone that has been following, will see that every post I have already posted is just that! Instead, I will let a Picture say a Thousand words: (I wonder if you can guess where the equator is?)

Pictures of the world and ferrofluid have already been rejected Chris as not advancing your argument.  You mocked my "travel through a magnet" discussion as being silly.  What I said was real, it's your pictures that are silly!

I am going to find a good magnetic field example from my favourite YouTube guy who is a teacher in real life.  You look at his paper talk and if you know basic calculus it will help also.  I will come back in a follow-up posting with the link or links,  Please watch the clip(s) because they will be the real thing.

We are still waiting for you to make a case for your claims.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 02:24:08 AM
I could spend hours wording an educational essay but anyone that has been following, will see that every post I have already posted is just that! Instead, I will let a Picture say a Thousand words: (I wonder if you can guess where the equator is?)
There is defently a field transition at the center of the dipole . The field to the left of the dipole center is different to that of the right of the dipole center.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 06, 2015, 02:28:44 AM
EMJ,

Is it your understanding that a Bloch wall exists in a simple energized solenoid electromagnet?

What is your understanding of the characteristics of the magnetic field around an energized straight piece of wire?

.99
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 02:30:01 AM
There is defently a field transition at the center of the dipole . The field to the left of the dipole center is different to that of the right of the dipole center.

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.  On either side of the center line of a magnet or a solenoid the field is essentially the same.  On either side of the center line the field will be slightly less strong as determined primarily by the geometry but this is not significant.

I have asked Chris about half a dozen times now to define the "Bloch wall" at the center of a magnet and he won't do it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 02:35:03 AM
Chris:

Take a look at this clip.   "The Magnetic Field due to a Toroid."

This clip is real science.  There is no "Bloch wall" in sight.  He uses techniques similar to my "traveling through a magnet."

Look at the formula, all of it is derived through logical deductive reasoning, nothing else.

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

This is real science, the real deal without any funny shenanigans going on.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 02:43:13 AM
There is defently a field transition at the center of the dipole . The field to the left of the dipole center is different to that of the right of the dipole center.

Yes agreed Tinman! Ferrofluid Experiment clearly shows this, repeatable every day of the week!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 06, 2015, 02:43:43 AM
Thanks poynt
This of course is exactly what my test setup showed.my uestion would be now is why when the center of a magnet (between the dipole) is passed across an inductors core, no power is generated if this is the point of the largest part of the flux field.MarkE seems to think there will be power generated (unless he misinterpreted my question), but as we know, there is none.

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), correct?

Can you surmise why when you swipe the inductor across the middle of the magnet you obtain little to no pulse amplitude?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 02:46:17 AM
One last example.

In science, and in the science of electronics and electromagnetics you start by solving for very basic examples.  A classic question is what is the magnetic field like around a wire carrying some current where the wire is infinitely long.  It may sound silly, but it is real.  Another classic is to ask what is the electric field like around an infinitely long line of electric charge.  One more time, this is absolutely real even through it sounds silly.  If you can figure these things out using deductive reasoning, then you can figure all sorts of other things out.

Here is another question:  You have a single loop of current-carrying wire.  What is the magnetic field like at any point along the axis of the loop of wire?   Have a look at the clip.  Even if you can't follow the derivation the end of the clip should make sense.  One more time, there is no Bloch wall in sight anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN296gUXkl4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN296gUXkl4)

Understanding these concepts is all part of the step-by-step learning process to understand how the world around you works.  If you studied physics or engineering or one of several other disciplines, you sat in class and went through stuff like this step by step.  Again, this is real science.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 02:50:36 AM
Chris:

Take a look at this clip.   "The Magnetic Field due to a Toroid."

This clip is real science.  There is no "Bloch wall" in sight.  He uses techniques similar to my "traveling through a magnet."

Look at the formula, all of it is derived through logical deductive reasoning, nothing else.

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

This is real science, the real deal without any funny shenanigans going on.

MileHigh,

If you're representing the Earth as a Toroid, or Bar Magnet as a Toroid, then your Magnetics is clearly so far distorted that a sensible debate is not possible. This is the same as trying to find where the road goes at the same time you're building it - goes where you want it to!!! Same as your Imaginary Experiment!!!

I have already explained why this argument is mute! This is for the same reason as the Iron Filing experiment is mute!

Please spare us all this total non-sense!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 03:00:09 AM
The later half of my post was in regards to PMs on a rotor, as it was in my post where you answered-but it is.
You pass the center of a pm past an inductors core, and no power is generated. But with this electromagnet test, most power is generated at the center of the magnet (electromagnt)
Tinman there is no surprise here.  The contours are parallel to the dipole near the center.  Iron filing experiments show  this fact.  The compass demonstration I just posted show this fact.  Induction through a pick-up coil as you have constructed shows this fact.  If we move the magnet or the coil parallel to the magnet's axis, then near the center there is the least change in flux crossing the pick-up coil and induction from the parallel motion there will be less than at the ends.  This too is completely consistent with almost 200 year old science.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 03:04:04 AM
I could spend hours wording an educational essay but anyone that has been following, will see that every post I have already posted is just that! Instead, I will let a Picture say a Thousand words: (I wonder if you can guess where the equator is?)
In the real world, there is no curl into your "magnetic equator".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 03:14:32 AM
MileHigh,

If you're representing the Earth as a Toroid, or Bar Magnet as a Toroid, then your Magnetics is clearly so far distorted that a sensible debate is not possible. This is the same as trying to find where the road goes at the same time you're building it - goes where you want it to!!! Same as your Imaginary Experiment!!!

I have already explained why this argument is mute! This is for the same reason as the Iron Filing experiment is mute!

Please spare us all this total non-sense!!!

Chris:

I simply gave an example of a toroid.  Did you follow along with the clip?

Who said that "I am representing the Earth as a toroid?"   Who said that I am "representing a bar magnet as a toroid?"  You are the only person that said that!

Your objection makes no sense at all because you are putting forth a nonsensical Straw Man argument, sorry!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 03:17:03 AM
Chris:

I simply gave an example of a toroid.  Did you follow along with the clip?

Who said that "I am representing the Earth as a toroid?"   Who said that I am "representing a bar magnet as a toroid?"  You are the only person that said that!

Your objection makes no sense at all because you are putting forth a nonsensical Straw Man argument, sorry!
Is it magnetic straw?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 03:19:37 AM
Tinman there is no surprise here.  The contours are parallel to the dipole near the center.  Iron filing experiments show  this fact.  The compass demonstration I just posted show this fact.  Induction through a pick-up coil as you have constructed shows this fact.  If we move the magnet or the coil parallel to the magnet's axis, then near the center there is the least change in flux crossing the pick-up coil and induction from the parallel motion there will be less than at the ends.  This too is completely consistent with almost 200 year old science.


MarkE - Congratulation's! Something sensible at last!

Alas, you support the wrong side of the fence:

If we move the magnet or the coil parallel to the magnet's axis, then near the center there is the least change in flux crossing the pick-up coil and induction from the parallel motion there will be less than at the ends.

According to your theory, having no Boundary, or Equator, or Bloch Wall, the diagram should show a linear Voltage all the way through the length of the Magnet! Use a Round, or Ball Magnet, you can try the same experiment any number times you wish with any design of Inductor you wish and as long as the same basic principals are followed then there will be a Zero Crossing right at the Equator or BLOCH WALL!

Its not rocket science!

This is just one more of many experiments that show the same results - That there is an Equator! It can be seen, felt and measured!

Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 03:27:20 AM

MarkE - Congratulation's! Something sensible at last!

Alas, you support the wrong side of the fence:

According to your theory, having no Boundary, or Equator, or Bloch Wall, the diagram should show a linear Voltage all the way through the length of the Magnet!
OK are you just blindly ignorant?  E is the cross product of l and db/dt.  Where the flux is uniform:  db/dt is zero.  Ergo a very long dipole moving through a coil at constant velocity will exhibit low voltage over most of its passage through the coil due to the near uniform field away from the poles.  What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?
Quote

You can try the same experiment any number times you wish with any design of Inductor you wish and as long as the same basic principals are followed then there will be a Zero Crossing right at the Equator or BLOCH WALL!
You have shown zero evidence for a Bloch Wall at the dipole center.  Reliable evidence going back 200 years points against your idea.
Quote

Its not rocket science!
No it isn't.  So why are you having such a hard time with it?
Quote

This is just one more of many experiments that show the same results - That there is an Equator! It can be seen, felt and measured!

Regards

  Chris
It is one of the many experiments that refute your claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 03:32:53 AM
Is it magnetic straw?

Good to see some humour! Nice  :)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 03:46:50 AM
E is the cross product of l and db/dt.  Where the flux is uniform:  db/dt is zero.

Some Science at last, however here in lies the problem: The sine of the voltage from Bvl changes after Zero is crossed at the Bloch Wall which does NOT support what you have been saying. You're saying that the Lines of Flux are Contiguous from Pole to Pole, so this means that the sine should stay one side of the Zero Line at all times with linear movement of either the Magnet of the Coil!

This does NOT Happen! Clearly - Experimentaly provable again!

What part of this are you having difficulty understanding?You have shown zero evidence for a Bloch Wall at the dipole center.  Reliable evidence going back 200 years points against your idea.No it isn't.  So why are you having such a hard time with it?It is one of the many experiments that refute your claims.

I hear Frustration, anger, some criticisms and some typo's - Still, the same line of force being cut with linear velocity by the inductor would NOT exhibit a change in sine - Period!

Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 04:39:12 AM
Some Science at last, however here in lies the problem: The sine  of the voltage from Bvl changes after Zero is crossed at the Bloch Wall which does NOT support what you have been saying. You're saying that the Lines of Flux are Contiguous from Pole to Pole, so this means that the sine should stay one side of the Zero Line at all times with linear movement of either the Magnet of the Coil! 
(sic) do you mean sign?  If you do it is patently obvious from my drawing that the slope crosses through zero at the midpoint of the dipole long axis.  So, you can exclaim all you want, but all you are doing is presenting yourself as ignorant of what has been placed directly before you:  The field contours are contiguous pole to pole, they become parallel at the dipole long axis midpoint, the relative slope of a parallel line is zero, and the slope off the contours on either side of the dipole midpoint have opposing signs.  All of this is nearly 200 year old science that you present yourself as willfully ignoring.
Quote

This does NOT Happen! Clearly - Experimentaly provable again!
Declare nonsense to your heart's content.
Quote

I hear Frustration, anger, some criticisms and some typo's - Still, the same line of force being cut with linear velocity by the inductor would NOT exhibit a change in sine - Period!
If you want to present yourself as having failed both geometry and calculus then be my guest.
Quote

Regards

  Chris
If in fact there were signficant curl near the dipole center as you hypothesize then a double inflection of voltage would occur as the dipole center approached and passed through the pick-up coil.  Yet no such double inflection occurs.  Ergo your hypothesis of such a curl is falsified.  Or would you now like to hypothesize entirely new laws of induction?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 04:47:19 AM
(sic) do you mean sign?  If you do it is patently obvious from my drawing that the slope crosses through zero at the midpoint of the dipole long axis.  So, you can exclaim all you want, but all you are doing is presenting yourself as ignorant of what has been placed directly before you:  The field contours are contiguous pole to pole, they become parallel at the dipole long axis midpoint, the relative slope of a parallel line is zero, and the slope off the contours on either side of the dipole midpoint have opposing signs.  All of this is nearly 200 year old science that you present yourself as willfully ignoring.Declare nonsense to your heart's content.If you want to present yourself as having failed both geometry and calculus then be my guest.If in fact there were signficant curl near the dipole center as you hypothesize then a double inflection of voltage would occur as it passed through the pick-up coil.  Yet no such double inflection occurs.  Ergo your hypothesis of such a curl is falsified.  Or would you now like to hypothesize entirely new laws of induction?

I hear what you're saying, you want to stop at the mid-point, or Bloch Wall, get out of your car, turn the Inductor or the Magnet around, get back into your car and continue with the Linear Motion of either the Magnet or the Coil?

Induction is as it always has been, I have not made any changes to it! You're in a dream land here, what you've POSTULATED IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 04:58:38 AM
I hear what you're saying, you want to stop at the mid-point, or Bloch Wall, get out of your car, turn the Inductor or the Magnet around, get back into your car and continue with the Linear Motion of either the Magnet or the Coil?

Induction is as it always has been, I have not made any changes to it! You're in a dream land here, what you've POSTULATED IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!

You're saying that in the below picture, where the conductor is shown stationary, this is where the Sine changes!!!
I see now you wish to present yourself as unable to notice the slope at different points on an ellipsoid.   I hope that what you are doing is really the put-on act that it appears to be.  If it isn't, get some basic tutoring.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 05:01:51 AM
If a single Flux Line is Cut with a Conductor with Linear Velocity of Either the Conductor or the Flux Line (Line of Force) it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Sine of the cross product of V and I as a result of Bvl, to change.

ONLY after change in Direction of Velocity or a change in the Direction of the Conductor Windings can the Sine Change! Standard Physics 101
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 06, 2015, 05:05:39 AM
@MH
Quote
Pictures of the world and ferrofluid have already been rejected Chris as not
advancing your argument.  You mocked my "travel through a magnet" discussion as
being silly.  What I said was real, it's your pictures that are silly!

Personally I would disagree and believe Chris has made some valid points ( I do not reject all of it) which nobody here seems willing to address in the proper context. I do agree with your"travel through a magnet" example however we are debating whether the magnetic field geometry reflects the iron filings pattern we see. So why are you trying to argue what a magnet is when that is completely out of context. We are speaking of the magnetic field not the magnet and yes Chris has made some valid points in that context.
I mean I'm trying to be as unbiased as I possibly can and I mean that sincerely but Chris keeps posting examples clearly showing a change near the center then everyone gives an answer which is completely out of context. Ranting on about 200 years of science, who gives a shit, we are talking about the present not the past and if someone does not have a rational explanation then they should just say so. This is bullshit that everyone is trying to win the argument at any cost without actually answering the hard questions and you guys know this, answer the question.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 05:07:01 AM
If a single Flux Line is Cut with a Conductor with Linear Velocity of Either the Conductor or the Flux Line (Line of Force) it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Sine of the cross product of V and I as a result of Bvl, to change.

ONLY after change in Velocity or a change in the Direction of the Conductor Windings can the Sine Change! Standard Physics 101
You can stomp your feet and scream and do whatever you like to try and convince people that you believe the guff you promote.  You have in many posts now established that you have no evidence in favor of your claims, and further established that you willfully ignore basic geometry, calculus, and electromagnetics.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 05:13:46 AM
@MHPersonally I would disagree and believe Chris has made some valid points ( I do not reject it) which nobody here seems willing to address in the proper context. I do agree with your"travel through a magnet" example however we are debating whether the magnetic field geometry reflects the iron filings pattern we see. So why are you trying to argue what a magnet is when that is completely out of context. We are speaking of the magnetic field not the magnet and yes Chris has made some valid points in that context.
I mean I'm trying to be as unbiased as I possibly can and I mean that sincerely but Chris keeps posting examples clearly showing a change near the center then everyone gives an answer which is completely out of context. Ranting on about 200 years of science, who gives a shit, we are talking about the present not the past and if someone does not have a rational explanation then they should just say so. This is bullshit that everyone is trying to win the argument at any cost without actually answering the hard questions and you guys know this, answer the question.
AC
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.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 06, 2015, 05:18:41 AM
I wonder if NASA has ever conducted a 3d experiment in either the shuttle or the space station using a strong magnet and iron filings or ferro fluid?

In a container, with iron filings or ferro fluid, and the magnet in the center, what would we see in micro gravity?

My only problem with the iron filings example which, of course, has been used for years, is that it is 2 dimensional.  Not that it would support or deter this argument going on here...I just always thought it would be cool to see this in 3-d.  Would the filings, or the fluid move or circulate?  Or remain stable like we see here on earth in 2-d.  In other words, is there a current or flow to this field?  Or, would we just a representation of field lines as TK says that we see on a topo map.

Does anyone remember/know if this has been done?

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 05:40:17 AM
Bill, I don't know of a specific experiment, but it is likely that something like that has been done.  Don't forget that NASA also uses cargo planes they put into free fall to get zero G without going into orbit.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 06, 2015, 05:41:44 AM
@Mark
Quote
Do you believe that he has established any evidence for a Bloch wall at the
center of a bar magnet?
No I do not believe it is a Bloch wall and I have reservations about his corialis force theory however I also believe he has shown more than enough data to suggest that something is happening to the external magnetic field near the magnet center.
Quote
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?
Yes I would agree he has posted more than enough evidence to suggest something is happening to the external magnetic field near the magnet center. I posted a picture and he also posted many other pictures in direct contradiction to the conventional view.

Quote
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?
You have shown pictures of iron filings and of a compass around a magnet however this in no way changes the fact that his evidence does not agree with yours. You are trying to argue it is an apple by showing an apple despite the fact his orange is sitting right next to you, ignoring it does not make it go away. So why are all the pictures of different experiments showing a curvature?--- That is the question we want an answer to. Not lectures, not the past or equations --- why are all these pictures showing as a fact that the external magnetic field is not parallel to the dipole axis?. A simple question which nobody has answered and in fact they have avoided it completely.

 
 
Quote
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.
His posts or messages do not change the evidence he has presented it speaks for itself .
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 05:55:21 AM
@Mark No I do not believe it is a Bloch wall and I have reservations about his corialis force theory however I also believe he has shown more than enough data to suggest that something is happening to the external magnetic field near the magnet center.
Kindly point to the evidence you find the most compelling.
Quote

Yes I would agree he has posted more than enough evidence to suggest something is happening to the external magnetic field near the magnet center. I posted a picture and he also posted many other pictures in direct contradiction to the conventional view.
Again please point to the evidence that you find the most compelling.
Quote


You have shown pictures of iron filings and of a compass around a magnet however this in no way changes the fact that his evidence does not agree with yours.
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?
Quote

 You are trying to argue it is an apple by showing an apple despite the fact his orange is sitting right next to you, ignoring it does not make it go away. So why are all the pictures of different experiments showing a curvature?--- That is the question we want an answer to. Not lectures, not the past or equations --- why are all these pictures showing as a fact that the external magnetic field is not parallel to the dipole axis?. A simple question which nobody has answered and in fact they have avoided it completely.
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?
Quote

 
 His posts or messages do not change the evidence he has presented it speaks for itself .
AC
Yes, it speaks very badly.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 06, 2015, 06:36:28 AM
@Mark
I found posts #344,346, 418 and my picture at #332 seem to be in favor of something happening near region of the magnet center.
I understand your perspective and I agree with most of it however I also think one has to keep an open mind. Some people seem to think this is a for or against scenario however I'm not completely for or against anything one hundred percent. The pictures show something which seems out of the ordinary from my perspective and I have not heard an explanation which I feel describes what I have seen completely.
What I do not agree with is people calling other people stupid or ignorant simply because they disagree on a topic. Is there something there, does it actually curl? --- who knows however I thought that was why we are all here isn't it?. I found the picture #332 I posted the most compelling and while the field may come parallel near the center the curl would seem to be undeniable and unexpected.
Quote
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?
Most of these pictures are all over the net and I have seen most of them before at one site or another. In any case to really understand something it should be a hands on experiment which we can do ourselves and I will have to think on an experiment we could do to prove this for ourselves one way or another. We know the iron filings experiment is against curl however that does not mean all experiments are in my opinion. It would seem to me the smaller the particles the greater the curl near the center which may be a good place to start.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 06, 2015, 06:53:28 AM
I just had a thought, generally I go through a learning process where I look at the the problem objectively then reverse it then try to visualize it from multiple perspectives.
Does the field curl?, if it did then why?, how could we make it curl inward?, what are the consequences?.
As such it may or may not curl in reality however just going through the logical steps will generally produce some insight and we may even learn something new however if we just deny it then we can be pretty sure were not going to learn anything. That's my theory... I'm here to learn something new.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 06, 2015, 07:24:07 AM
Bill, I don't know of a specific experiment, but it is likely that something like that has been done.  Don't forget that NASA also uses cargo planes they put into free fall to get zero G without going into orbit.

Ah yes, the "vomit comet".  These aircraft fly a parabolic flight path that gives 0 g for a very short time.  Did you know that Chuck Yeager (of breaking the sound barrier fame) flew the first parabolic flight paths to test this new theory?  (Well, it was new back then)

I just thought it would be cool and educational to see a 3-d rendering of the field lines.  I am sure this has been modeled on computers also somewhere along the way.

It just occured to me that some guy on youtube a few years ago, showed us how to make our own "ferro fluid".  He basically suspended a bunch of iron filings in a bottle of baby oil.  He would hold this up to a magnet and the suspended particles would show the field lines.  In thinking about it, I suppose one could get a larger, clear container, and make the same mixture and then, suspend a strong magnet into the center of the container.  This would give a somewhat 3-d view I should think.  This guys point was that the specific gravity of the filings was close to that of the baby oil, (mineral oil with fragrance added) which allowed them to remain suspended.

I might try this when I get a chance.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 07:51:11 AM
@Mark
I found posts #344,346, 418 and my picture at #332 seem to be in favor of something happening near region of the magnet center.
I understand your perspective and I agree with most of it however I also think one has to keep an open mind. Some people seem to think this is a for or against scenario however I'm not completely for or against anything one hundred percent. The pictures show something which seems out of the ordinary from my perspective and I have not heard an explanation which I feel describes what I have seen completely.
What I do not agree with is people calling other people stupid or ignorant simply because they disagree on a topic. Is there something there, does it actually curl? --- who knows however I thought that was why we are all here isn't it?. I found the picture #332 I posted the most compelling and while the field may come parallel near the center the curl would seem to be undeniable and unexpected.Most of these pictures are all over the net and I have seen most of them before at one site or another. In any case to really understand something it should be a hands on experiment which we can do ourselves and I will have to think on an experiment we could do to prove this for ourselves one way or another. We know the iron filings experiment is against curl however that does not mean all experiments are in my opinion. It would seem to me the smaller the particles the greater the curl near the center which may be a good place to start.

AC
We have for example this picture from #332:  We see clumping of ferrofluid by the poles and not along the sides of the magnet, and are offered the conclusion that there is therefore a "clearly visible" Bloch wall in the center of the magnet.  Using any reliable information you have on magnets, kindly offer any reasonable basis for the conclusion offered based on that picture.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 06, 2015, 08:00:57 AM
I wonder if NASA has ever conducted a 3d experiment in either the shuttle or the space station using a strong magnet and iron filings or ferro fluid?

In a container, with iron filings or ferro fluid, and the magnet in the center, what would we see in micro gravity?

My only problem with the iron filings example which, of course, has been used for years, is that it is 2 dimensional.  Not that it would support or deter this argument going on here...I just always thought it would be cool to see this in 3-d.  Would the filings, or the fluid move or circulate?  Or remain stable like we see here on earth in 2-d.  In other words, is there a current or flow to this field?  Or, would we just a representation of field lines as TK says that we see on a topo map.

Does anyone remember/know if this has been done?

Thanks,

Bill
  not in space but somewhat better than paper.  I imagine if you take iron powder and put it in water a more three dimensional field observation could be made
  https://sharepoint.umich.edu/lsa/physics/demolab/SitePages/5H15.50%20-%20Projection%20of%20the%20Magnetic%20Field%20Due%20to%20a%20Current%20in%20a%20Toroid.aspx (https://sharepoint.umich.edu/lsa/physics/demolab/SitePages/5H15.50%20-%20Projection%20of%20the%20Magnetic%20Field%20Due%20to%20a%20Current%20in%20a%20Toroid.aspx)


  I would add a switch to the circuit to get the iron filings moving  ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 09:07:21 AM
@Mark
I found posts #344,346, 418 and my picture at #332 seem to be in favor of something happening near region of the magnet center.
I understand your perspective and I agree with most of it however I also think one has to keep an open mind. Some people seem to think this is a for or against scenario however I'm not completely for or against anything one hundred percent. The pictures show something which seems out of the ordinary from my perspective and I have not heard an explanation which I feel describes what I have seen completely.
What I do not agree with is people calling other people stupid or ignorant simply because they disagree on a topic. Is there something there, does it actually curl? --- who knows however I thought that was why we are all here isn't it?. I found the picture #332 I posted the most compelling and while the field may come parallel near the center the curl would seem to be undeniable and unexpected.Most of these pictures are all over the net and I have seen most of them before at one site or another. In any case to really understand something it should be a hands on experiment which we can do ourselves and I will have to think on an experiment we could do to prove this for ourselves one way or another. We know the iron filings experiment is against curl however that does not mean all experiments are in my opinion. It would seem to me the smaller the particles the greater the curl near the center which may be a good place to start.

AC

AC - This post has regained all my faith - By Far the best and most logical post I have ever read on ou.com!

I apologise for ANY Obscenities I may have inadvertently directed at anyone. Yes it was getting a heated debate and I was off foot before I even entered this debate due to criticism directed before I entered this debate.

Like I have said in prior posts, I do believe all here are good people and not deliberately trying to obscure the path of work in front of us! Just set in their ways  ;)

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 09:56:26 AM
To try to move forward  8)

What Experiment has shown me:

I know the zone around the Equator is a Null or a Zero Force Magnetic Zone. Some sort of a Cancelation occurs here. At the same time there is a large repulsion force here.
I know that Induction is much lower at the Equator.
I know that some strange effects are visible at the Equator.

The Ferrofluid Experiments are un-disputable, the show effects that are visible else where in Nature, EG: Sun's filament Eruptions and so on...

What I believe may be possible:

I believe there may be more than one force here, one or more of which may be proportional to the Inverse Square Law URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

We know this to be true for Gravity already and Magnetic Fields are also said to already use this effect. I believe its in effect and we can see this on the Ferrofluid in the cone shaped Spikes on each Pole!

The Cone Shaped Spikes are a Cone Shape for a reason!

If the Fields curl back in to the Equator as has been shown in many pictures then the Inverse Square Law would explain why they are hard to detect here. I have a picture that appears to show this but it is hard to make out and not definitive. Picture attached.

The Spin on each field line Curling back into the Equator could be of inverse to each other! Meaning that as each Field line of each opposite Pole Curls back into the Equator, the Vector potential of each Field Line would have a Spin in the opposing direction to each other and thus cancel each other in their close proximitys.

Experiment can show this effect by moving two Permanent Magnets in opposite directions relative to a stationary conductor - Null Induction. Also Bi-Filar NON Inductive Coils, not being inductive because the Spins mostly cancel to each other.

Please Note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs

In my video, the Magnetic Viewing Paper show the same effects as the Ferrofluid - The Bloch Wall Grows the longer the Magnet

Howard Johnson's work is supported by many other Magnetic Viewing Experiments today but I can not prove this is whats going on, I can prove Experimentally that the Bloch Wall is there and it can be felt and seen also with the right equipment it can be measured!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 10:17:50 AM
To try to move forward  8)

What Experiment has shown me:

I know the zone around the Equator is a Null or a Zero Force Magnetic Zone. Some sort of a Cancelation occurs here. At the same time there is a large repulsion force here.
That is absolutely false.
Quote

I know that Induction is much lower at the Equator.
Flux density and curl is much higher at the poles.
Quote
I know that some strange effects are visible at the Equator.
Kindly specifically identify these effects and what evidence you believe exists for them.
Quote

The Ferrofluid Experiments are un-disputable, the show effects that are visible else where in Nature, EG: Sun's filament Eruptions and so on...
It is indisputable that the ferro fluid forms patterns. Your conclusions are highly disputable.
Quote

What I believe may be possible:

I believe there may be more than one force here, one or more of which may be proportional to the Inverse Square Law URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
Moving away from a dipole the field falls off as the inverse cube of the distance.
Quote

We know this to be true for Gravity already and Magnetic Fields are also said to already use this effect. I believe its in effect and we can see this on the Ferrofluid in the cone shaped Spikes on each Pole!
Which "effect" would that be?  Are you still referring to inverse square law?  Because it does not work for dipoles.
Quote

The Cone Shaped Spikes are a Cone Shape for a reason!
They certainly are.  You can scratch your head on that one.  Or to use an analogy: rub a balloon on your head.
Quote

If the Fields curl back in to the Equator as has been shown in many pictures
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?
Quote
then the Inverse Square Law would explain why they are hard to detect here.
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.
Quote
I have a picture that appears to show this but it is hard to make out and not definitive. Picture attached.
It is a nice pretty picture.  Without a definitive statement of the conditions under which it was taken, it offers no probative value.
Quote

The Spin on each field line Curling back into the Equator could be of inverse to each other! Meaning that as each Field line of each opposite Pole Curls back into the Equator, the Vector potential of each Field Line would have a Spin in the opposing direction to each other and thus cancel each other in their close proximitys.
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.
Quote

Experiment can show this effect by moving two Permanent Magnets in opposite directions relative to a stationary conductor - Null Induction. Also Bi-Filar NON Inductive Coils, not being inductive because the Spins mostly cancel to each other.
There are many ways to end up with net zero induced EMF.  Inducing two equal and opposite voltages is one such way.
Quote

Please Note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs
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.
Quote

In my video, the Magnetic Viewing Paper show the same effects as the Ferrofluid - The Bloch Wall Grows the longer the Magnet

Howard Johnson's work is supported by many other Magnetic Viewing Experiments today but I can not prove this is whats going on, I can prove Experimentally that the Bloch Wall is there and it can be felt and seen also with the right equipment it can be measured!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Howard Johnson never successfully closed the loop.  He basically made oversized SMOTs, which like all SMOTs were never overunity.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 10:51:02 AM
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.

Ohhhhh = MarkE I am very disappointed in your reply!


Yet again - you prove one thing that has nothing to do with the topic at hand - I will leave you scratching your head on what that might be!

I think you might be a bit sad for coming this far and still having no Scientific Evidence to the Contrary? You STILL have an Orange sitting beside you and your apple is shown to be a bad one!

Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 11:30:16 AM
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), correct?

Can you surmise why when you swipe the inductor across the middle of the magnet you obtain little to no pulse amplitude?
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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 06, 2015, 11:41:14 AM



   Guys,
          for a bit of fun look what's going on with ,say, a horseshoe!
  At one time they were extensively used in magnetos and generators.
   I sent a post to the wrong thread.
   Inverse square works for monopole.
   For simple dipole inverse cube suits better .
           John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 11:48:27 AM
Ohhhhh = MarkE I am very disappointed in your reply!


Yet again - you prove one thing that has nothing to do with the topic at hand - I will leave you scratching your head on what that might be!

I think you might be a bit sad for coming this far and still having no Scientific Evidence to the Contrary? You STILL have an Orange sitting beside you and your apple is shown to be a bad one!

Regards

  Chris
Yet again you offer no facts.  The mag paper you use does not turn bright because it lays over a Bloch wall.  It turns brighter where the field lines run parallel the plane of the paper.  So we have you once again offering claims for Bloch walls where your evidence fails to support such claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 11:59:41 AM
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.
The figure 8 scenario was mine Mark,and at the moment im sticking to it. The iron filings test is nothing but rubbish. All you are doing is building a flux path with the iron filings. As i said before,once you have dropped those iron filings all over the paper with the magnet under it,you can shape them any way you want. Here is a fact,and you know this to be true-->any feromagnetic material will distort a magnetic field when brought close to it,and that is exactly what is happening when iron filings are dropped on top of a magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 12:02:56 PM
Yet again you offer no facts.  The mag paper you use does not turn bright because it lays over a Bloch wall.  It turns brighter where the field lines run parallel the plane of the paper.  So we have you once again offering claims for Bloch walls where your evidence fails to support such claims.


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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 12:05:14 PM
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.
In order to induce a voltage there has to be a cross product of conductor length and changing flux density versus time.  Near the center of a dipole the field runs parallel to the dipole. The field changes very little on either side of the center of the dipole.  Consequently, the db/dt is very low even though the field is as close to perpendicular to the coil as it is going to get.
Quote

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 ???
The field is most definitely present and readily detected as shown by many different experiment methods.  Dipoles like iron filings, compass needles, etc all align parallel to the dipole adjacent to the dipole midpoint.  They do that even when the dipole is aligned perpendicular to the earth's north south filed lines.  A compass brought in proximity to the dipole center remains locked to the dipole's field lines that run dead E-W at its midpoint.  If the hypothesis were true that the field lines curl towards the dipole at its midpoint, then that would be very apparent on the compass.  But the compass does not behave that way.  The curl to the center of the magnet hypothesis is false.
Quote

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.
The field at the center is dead parallel.  The longer the dipole the flatter the ellipse.
Quote

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?.
Please refer to the diagrams and state what in particular you are having difficulty understanding.
Quote

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.
To the extent that the paper has a lot of friction or if we play games with electrical charge then we can develop force that competes with the turning moments causedby the local field intercepting the filings.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 12:08:55 PM
The figure 8 scenario was mine Mark,and at the moment im sticking to it. The iron filings test is nothing but rubbish. All you are doing is building a flux path with the iron filings. As i said before,once you have dropped those iron filings all over the paper with the magnet under it,you can shape them any way you want. Here is a fact,and you know this to be true-->any feromagnetic material will distort a magnetic field when brought close to it,and that is exactly what is happening when iron filings are dropped on top of a magnet.
Tinman short of immersing the magnet into a can full of ultra fine filings, the density of the filings is so low that they do not have a significant impact on the field.  However, even if you do not accept that, the fact is that a compass maps out the same contours.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 12:10:17 PM

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
Yes you are a complete put on.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 12:11:53 PM
In order to induce a voltage there has to be a cross product of conductor length and changing flux density versus time.  Near the center of a dipole the field runs parallel to the dipole. The field changes very little on either side of the center of the dipole.  Consequently, the db/dt is very low even though the field is as close to perpendicular to the coil as it is going to get.The field is most definitely present and readily detected as shown by many different experiment methods.  Dipoles like iron filings, compass needles, etc all align parallel to the dipole adjacent to the dipole midpoint.  They do that even when the dipole is aligned perpendicular to the earth's north south filed lines.  A compass brought in proximity to the dipole center remains locked to the dipole's field lines that run dead E-W at its midpoint.  If the hypothesis were true that the field lines curl towards the dipole at its midpoint, then that would be very apparent on the compass.  But the compass does not behave that way.  The curl to the center of the magnet hypothesis is false.The field at the center is dead parallel.  The longer the dipole the flatter the ellipse.Please refer to the diagrams and state what in particular you are having difficulty understanding.To the extent that the paper has a lot of friction or if we play games with electrical charge then we can develop force that competes with the turning moments causedby the local field intercepting the filings.

Oh my - MarkE - MORE BAD SCIENCE! Seriously!

Talk about flogging a dead horse! Get some Proof MarkE, stop talking rubbish with no substantial claims. ALL YOUR PROOF is WRONG!!!

Long Solenoid - Physics has already proven you wrong, nearly every science class for some 10 years does this experiment! What part of Experiment can you not understand? Experimental Proof is Hard Fact and yet you still refute it? Why I wonder?

Please go back to school!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 12:15:33 PM
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.
Like i said before Mark,your compass experiment is flawed. Now how about you try your own experiment,and let us know the result's of my test.
You take two bar magnets,and you face the north of one end of one magnet to the south end of the other magnet. You now place a 1/2 inch plastic spacer inbetween those two magnet,so as you have(N-spacer-S). Now you know that there is a north and a south field there(im useing north and south-as that's what were taught in school,and we all know how much you like sticking to what we are taught)-->now try your own test. As you will know without even trying the test,the results will be exactly the same as the test you wish us to carry out.
Like i said,your compass test is flawed,and of no use to this thread.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 12:44:00 PM
!st of many experiments carried out in the past year.
The picture tells the story,so no need for a long post.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 12:56:54 PM
Second of many test.
Once again,the pic tells the story
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 01:01:35 PM
!st of many experiments carried out in the past year.
The picture tells the story,so no need for a long post.

Tinman - I concur! My Experiments agree! In-fact B will be repelled from its position there at the Bloch Wall!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 01:07:36 PM
Really - Simple questions give answers!


Why is there a Concave at the Bloch Wall and not Convex? This fact is exaggerated with Longer Magnets! I know MarkE's answer but for others - Why
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 01:13:19 PM
Because there is No Magnetic Field at the Bloch Wall the Support a Convex?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 01:18:06 PM
Really - Simple questions give answers!


Why is there a Concave at the Bloch Wall and not Convex? This fact is exaggerated with Longer Magnets! I know MarkE's answer but for others - Why
Ah-the figure 8 field-nice clean pic there. I did say i thought it would be a figure 8 or peanut shape field way back in this thread. There is one test i am going to carry out that will once and for all,tell us what the field looks like without distorting it with feromagnetic material's-->just waiting for the gear to turn up i have ordered.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 01:20:28 PM
Cool cant wait -  ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 01:22:05 PM
Really - Simple questions give answers!


Why is there a Concave at the Bloch Wall and not Convex? This fact is exaggerated with Longer Magnets! I know MarkE's answer but for others - Why
P.S
And the under side is even defying gravity. One would think that if there was a field as described by the other's,that at least the underside of the heavy ferrofluid would show it. But as can be seen,it is stuck fast at the center of the magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 01:25:05 PM
Because there is No Magnetic Field at the Bloch Wall the Support a Convex?
As the domains within the center of the magnet are still aligned,i really cant see how it is a bloch wall. But it really dose seem to be a null zone. Anyway,in a week or two,we will know for sure what the field shape is. ;) ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: itsu on January 06, 2015, 01:41:43 PM
Tinman,

as i see it, your both pictures (first EX1) are confirming what MarkE is trying to tell you guys all along.

You guys are looking at the same famous picture of an old woman or a beautiful lady depending on how you look at it.

 
Open your mind, change your view, only then you will see

Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 06, 2015, 02:17:51 PM
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.

Brad, remember my post explaining why you had the most induction when your pancake coil was in the middle? If not, perhaps review it.

The magnetic field of the magnet is not the strongest at the middle, in fact it is the same all along from end to end. But at the center, there is a maximum NET flux that can be intercepted by your coil, provided the coil encircles the magnet as you have shown.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 02:18:22 PM
Tinman,

as i see it, your both pictures (first EX1) are confirming what MarkE is trying to tell you guys all along.

You guys are looking at the same famous picture of an old woman or a beautiful lady depending on how you look at it.

 
Open your mind, change your view, only then you will see

Regards Itsu
Itsu
What kind of magnetic field(flux) dose not induce a steel core when it passes by it?-none that i know of. This is a field that cant induce a feromagnetic core in an inductor to produce power,it is a field that dosnt attract any feromagnetic material. It is a Claytons field-the field you having when your not having one.
We see all these pictures(see below) of these wonderful field line's(which we know dont exist)
We see north and south writen all over them,and also what we learnt in school-but dont exist
And all these arrows that show us the direction of-->we dont know what.

All the test i have carried out can find no evidence of this field
The pic of the ferrofluid shows no evidence of this field-even the underside.
And the only evidence that has been shown that this field exist(other than hearsay)is iron filings sticking together due to them giving the flux a path to follow.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 06, 2015, 02:22:19 PM
!st of many experiments carried out in the past year.
The picture tells the story,so no need for a long post.

What is A + C?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 02:24:51 PM
Brad, remember my post explaining why you had the most induction when your pancake coil was in the middle? If not, perhaps review it.

The magnetic field of the magnet is not the strongest at the middle, in fact it is the same all along from end to end. But at the center, there is a maximum NET flux that can be intercepted by your coil, provided the coil encircles the magnet as you have shown.
Yes,i read the post Poynt.
Please see post 485 and486.
Why wont this area of maximum net flux make it's way through inductor B?,when either side A&C with less flux area will induce it's flux into the core of inductors A and C,and thus cause a current to flow-in opposite directions mind you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 06, 2015, 02:29:07 PM
Yes,i read the post Poynt.
Please see post 485 and486.
Why wont this area of maximum net flux make it's way through inductor B?,when either side A&C with less flux area will induce it's flux into the core of inductors A and C,and thus cause a current to flow-in opposite directions mind you.

Two reasons:

1) In the middle, most of the flux is confined within the magnet itself.

2) While swiping across the middle area, you are inducing as much positive voltage as you are negative, so what is the result?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 04:09:53 PM
Like i said before Mark,your compass experiment is flawed. Now how about you try your own experiment,and let us know the result's of my test.
You take two bar magnets,and you face the north of one end of one magnet to the south end of the other magnet. You now place a 1/2 inch plastic spacer inbetween those two magnet,so as you have(N-spacer-S). Now you know that there is a north and a south field there(im useing north and south-as that's what were taught in school,and we all know how much you like sticking to what we are taught)-->now try your own test. As you will know without even trying the test,the results will be exactly the same as the test you wish us to carry out.
Like i said,your compass test is flawed,and of no use to this thread.
Why do you think there is a flaw?  Unless you use a big compass, or get really sloppy you will be able to map the composite contour.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 04:13:27 PM
Tinman - I concur! My Experiments agree! In-fact B will be repelled from its position there at the Bloch Wall!

Kind Regards

  Chris
LOL!  You think that in a stack of end to end high energy magnets that one of the adjacent N-S aligned magnets will repel?  You could easily lose a finger with such a loopy belief.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 04:14:41 PM
Really - Simple questions give answers!


Why is there a Concave at the Bloch Wall and not Convex? This fact is exaggerated with Longer Magnets! I know MarkE's answer but for others - Why
You keep claiming that there is a Bloch wall where there is none and no evidence for one.   This put on act of yours is nuts.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 04:57:27 PM
Tinman:

See the attached image.

When I said the field would be at the maximum intensity, I meant the field inside the bar magnet.  That where the text "Max" is in the attached image.  On either side of the maximum strength field inside the magnet, the field is essentially the same with the same direction.  Sorry for not being clear.

Look at the two red loops in the picture.  The blue lines represent the rotational axis for each loop.  When the upper loop rotates about its axis, there will be almost no EMF generated.   When the lower loop rotates, there will be EMF generated, showing that the field is present.

If you can imagine perfectly straight field lines, then when you put a rectangular piece of iron in that field there will be no attraction force pulling the magnet in any direction.  However, the iron will line up with the field just like an iron filing.  That's the iron "falling" into its state of lowest magnetic potential energy.  Forget about where the magnetic field is coming from, it's just a thought experiment.

When you put a piece of iron alongside the center of a long rectangular magnet, the same effect is happening where you don't feel any force on the iron piece.  Referencing the diagram, you have a magnetic field inside the bar magnet going from right to left.  That will not affect the piece of iron.  Outside the bar magnet you have a nearly straight unchanging magnetic field going from left to right.  The iron piece is in that nearly constant unchanging field and therefore there is no net force on the piece of iron. However, the lower red loop in the diagram when spinning proves that the magnetic field is there.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 05:14:06 PM
Chris and Tinman:

Please see the attached image.

The bulges and the cones are a result of the ferrofluid "falling" to the lowest possible state of magnetic potential energy.  There are gravitational effects and surface tension effects that also come into play.  The individual spikes are a result of a complicated quest for finding the lowest MPE.   I already linked to an excellent clip from the "Sixty Symbols" YouTube channel that explains this in more detail.

I have a feeling that for both of you this notion of "falling" into the state of lowest magnetic potential energy is a concept that is somewhat foreign to you.   When a piece of iron gets attracted to and sticks to the end of a bar magnet that's exactly what's happening.   When you bring a bar magnet close to a pile of free iron filings in dry air (not in an oil solution) you see exactly the same effect taking place.  You see the iron filings forming long spikes and tendrils.  If you don't understand this concept then please do your research online.

The thinner center "waist" in the middle between the bulges is primarily do to the fact that the ferrofluid is being pulled towards each pole.  As has already been described in my previous posting, there is a minimum of magnetic attraction in this zone.   So the ferrofluid is pulled toward each end, but the ferrofluid itself is "sticky" due to surface tension and you get the center "waist" as shown in the attached picture.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 05:17:28 PM
Chris:

Look at my yacht!   I get paid $450 USD per hour to debate with you!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 05:58:15 PM
Chris:

I am reposting this image because you seemingly ignored it.  MarkE had to remind you about what the viewing film is actually showing you.

I don't think I have ever seen a YouTube clip where someone uses magnetic viewing film and speaks intelligently about what it is showing them.  What I have seen are dozens of clips where people use the film and whatever pattern they are looking at is taken as "conformation" of what they are investigating.  They don't even know what they are looking at.

Come on people, surely you can do better than that.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
Why not find a pic of an actual Bloch wall kind of setup,, come on MH, you know what I mean,, 2 stacks of magnets barley pulled apart or not exactly lined up.

After you find that one, then look to find one that has a larger viewing window so that you can see the outside lines of force continue on with the normal path from long pole end to long pole end.

This is why I call this a local area effect,,  and all the pictures so far have shown this,, even the spin picture.
Why not?  Because a Bloch wall is a boundary between two unaligned magnetic domains.  The magnetic polarization rotates through the width of the Bloch wall.  In a permanent magnet, the vast majority of domains are aligned.  Therefore boundaries between unaligned domains are far and few between.  EMJUNKIE has been promotiong the completely nonsensical claim that at the center of a dipole magnet there is a Bloch wall.  He even offers the fantasy that these walls are easily seen in ferro fluid and magnetic paper demonstrations with bar magnets.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 09:00:52 PM
Chris:

Look at my yacht!   I get paid $450 USD per hour to debate with you!

MileHigh

wow nice yacht! - doesn't hold water either ha?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 09:14:15 PM
Two reasons:

1) In the middle, most of the flux is confined within the magnet itself.
]
Bingo.

2) While swiping across the middle area, you are inducing as much positive voltage as you are negative, so what is the result?[/glow

And bingo again. North plus south =0
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 06, 2015, 09:18:51 PM
What is A + C?
A + C are the same value,only 180* out of phase. B has a value of 0.
A and C have a potential difference and B dose not.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 09:19:08 PM
Why not?  Because a Bloch wall is a boundary between two unaligned magnetic domains.  The magnetic polarization rotates through the width of the Bloch wall.  In a permanent magnet, the vast majority of domains are aligned.  Therefore boundaries between unaligned domains are far and few between.  EMJUNKIE has been promotiong the completely nonsensical claim that at the center of a dipole magnet there is a Bloch wall.  He even offers the fantasy that these walls are easily seen in ferro fluid and magnetic paper demonstrations with bar magnets.

For MarkE, MileHigh and others that support Di-Pole Field line closure of Magnetic Field Lines:

Physics for MANY MANY Years has done an experiment, yes its repeatable, every day of the week, by children, yes children!

A long Solenoid, has NO MAGNETIC SURROUNDING IT

Every physics professor on the Globe, with an Equator at is centre, between the Poles of its very own Di-Pole, Where Gravity is 3% less, and many hundreds of other effects can be seen, would be ashamed to have such a bunch of fools on the planet!

You, who support Field Line Enclosure from pole to Pole - Have been proven WRONG! Children can prove you WRONG Science is laughing at you right now.

MarkE, Milehigh - believe what you want, but you've been proven wrong! Todays Science, not just me and others here, can prove your Imaginary and Flawed Compass Experiments to be beyond pitiful NON-SENSE!

Astro Physics even disagrees with this NON-Sense:


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 09:32:39 PM
Chris:

Every physics and electronics professor is in agreement with what myself and Mark and others state.  We have the evidence also.

Only on Planet Bizarro does your theory make sense to the Bizarro people.  And it's still wrong there also!  It's the Bizarro people that have the problem.

Why 3% lighter on the Equator?  Without looking anything up, I know that the planet bulges from centrifugal force.  So you are farther away from the center of mass of the Earth.

F = G M1M2/r^2.

Probably a tiny tiny smidgen of that 3% factor is from the centrifugal force on the human body itself.  All of this could easily be calculated with a calculator.  I still remember the value for "G" also,  6.67 x 10^-11.   Don't ask me for the "Newton-bla bla bla" units though because that's hard to remember.  No Bloch wall in sight.

You are just completely deluded and it evident that nothing can be done.  It's a little bit shocking nonetheless.

Science is looking towards you with dismay.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 06, 2015, 09:39:08 PM
What if you put a bar magnet in an empty solenoid coil and cut the magnet in half lengthwise (the cut is parallel to its length, which is also the direction of its magnetization direction) ?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 09:52:58 PM
For MarkE, MileHigh and others that support Di-Pole Field line closure of Magnetic Field Lines:

Physics for MANY MANY Years has done an experiment, yes its repeatable, every day of the week, by children, yes children!

A long Solenoid, has NO MAGNETIC SURROUNDING IT

Every physics professor on the Globe, with an Equator at is centre, between the Poles of its very own Di-Pole, Where Gravity is 3% less, and many hundreds of other effects can be seen, would be ashamed to have such a bunch of fools on the planet!

You, who support Field Line Enclosure from pole to Pole - Have been proven WRONG! Children can prove you WRONG Science is laughing at you right now.

MarkE, Milehigh - believe what you want, but you've been proven wrong! Todays Science, not just me and others here, can prove your Imaginary and Flawed Compass Experiments to be beyond pitiful NON-SENSE!

Astro Physics even disagrees with this NON-Sense:
Once again you are worse than wrong.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 10:08:16 PM
That is why I said pulled apart or not exactly lined up,, this does create a Block wall region.
You get a Bloch wall when:

1) You point two like poles towards each other.
2) You otherwise orient two adjacent domains so that they are not aligned N-S.  For instance at 90 degrees to each other.

The one place where you do not get a Bloch wall is between two aligned domains. 

So if one puts two magnets close to each other or in direct intimate contact and they both point pretty much the same way, there will be few Bloch walls.  EMJUNKIE has been jerking everyone's chain with his utterly and totally nonsensical farce that there is a Bloch wall bisecting a magnetic dipole.
Quote

Comparing that region to what is supposed to be found then is a starting point.

Then, as I mentioned, when you open the viewing window furhter and see what the rest of the feild lines are doing might allow for a simple observation to see if those interactions that would be seen either follow the Block wall region or change into the normal closed path shape.
Again to have a Bloch wall you need adjacent unaligned domains.  Since in a PM almost all the domains point the same way, there is no macro level Bloch wall.  There will be small localized walls only.
Quote

I would think that if this interaction is present then it should show over the entire range of interaction and not just within a local area field effect.

I know that I can blow a bubble within the existing field effect area,, just like I can blow a bubble under water,, so would doing that and having the bubble move past this assumed interactive area behave differently as it crosses that boundary?
If by boundary you mean Bloch wall, to paraphrase Tim Allen:  "There is no "quantum flux". There's no "auxiliary". THERE'S NO GODDAMNED BLOCH WALL. You got it? "  The conventional explanations account for all the observations you have brought to the discussion.  Multiple experiments have been offered that support the truth of those conventional explanations.  Where is the exception?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 10:23:21 PM
Once again you are worse than wrong.

More DENIAL!!!! Science doesn't exist and we are all worms is that how it goes MarkE  :o :o :o
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 06, 2015, 10:26:18 PM



     Usually words used in electrical components have an every day meaning, eg "tank".
 Take "domain" and it means a realm or kingdom. So can I assume that when used
 in connection with magnets, say, domain would apply to the whole of a bar magnet
 if it was pure and fully magnetised?
                  John.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 10:28:16 PM
More DENIAL!!!! Science doesn't exist and we are all worms is that how it goes MarkE  :o :o :o

MARKE and others that cant comprehend REAL SCIENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI

Minute 30:17

I quote REAL SCIENCE FOR THE DUMMIES AND BRAIN DEAD!!! Internationally Renowned World Class Physicist Walter Lewin.

"So the Magnetic Field is INSIDE the Solenoid"


Wait for it - DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL MARKE you OIL COMPANY TROLL!!!

You FOOL How can you DISPUTE FACT!!! You FOOL  ::) ::)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 06, 2015, 10:29:58 PM
More DENIAL!!!! Science doesn't exist and we are all worms is that how it goes MarkE  :o :o :o
yeah sure.  When will you come up with some new material for this farce of yours?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 10:39:32 PM
Once again you are worse than wrong.

Don't tell me, Walter Lewin was Born as a Beetroot and his science doesn't work??? MarkE you're full of DENIAL OIL COMPANY TROLL!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 10:53:08 PM
Once again you are worse than wrong.

I am REALLY AMAZED at this Scientific Rebuttal - MARKE overunity.com Pleb/OIL COMPANY TROLL: "Once again you are worse than wrong" vs World Class Physicist Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is INSIDE the Solenoid"

Nothing but FOOLISH NON-SENSE - MARKE STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF!!!

I have provided References and everything, yet still you refute it - What NON-SENSE!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 11:16:55 PM
I am REALLY AMAZED at this Scientific Rebuttal - MARKE overunity.com Pleb/OIL COMPANY TROLL: "Once again you are worse than wrong" vs World Class Physicist Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is INSIDE the Solenoid"

Nothing but FOOLISH NON-SENSE - MARKE STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF!!!

I have provided References and everything, yet still you refute it - What NON-SENSE!!!

Let me tell you something Chris.   I stumbled across your clip on YouTube and saw how wrong it was so I challenged you.   Then I brought the debate here because it's an interesting exercise for the readers.  It was done to help inform the readers on this forum.  Since this thread has 'action' for sure people on the other two main forums are reading also.  And there are many second-tier forums where we can assume that people are reading.

The goal is to help people on all the forums to learn and dispel myths.  I think of the Energetic Forum and how so many bad ideas and concepts are entrenched there.  They exist on all the other forums also.  Many readers are so locked in by the peer group pressure that they will read this thread, and get the message, but they will still go on posting nonsense about the Bloch wall.  Hey if Bedini says there is Bloch wall in the center of a magnet you will get sliced and diced on the Energetic Forum if you post that you disagree.

So when you look at people, there may be people that disagree like you, there may be "secret converts" that agree with me but they don't dare say it, and their will be people that got the message loud and clear and they finally understand and they won't be afraid or ashamed to state it.

So, this thread can be qualified as a partial success.  And you have made yourself into a poster boy for people that refuse to listen and learn and keep pushing their nonsensical house of cards.  It's called pseudoscience, and you typify a hard-core glazed-eyed believer in nonsensical pseudoscience.  That's your right.  There is an old Weird Al Yankovic song which is a tribute to Devo called "Dare to be Stupid."

Now, a couple a years ago I was reading a forum.  This guy claimed that he had a magic pulse motor.  He said in all seriousness that if the Feds came for him that he was armed to the teeth and and he would barricade himself in his house and shoot it out to the death if need be.  A "Pulse Motor Ruby Ridge" in the making.

When I read that I said to myself that I would never reveal my real name or location on these forums.  The last thing I need is a f*cking nutcase stalking me and waiting to blow my head off.

So when you say I "work for Big Oil" I view that as an irresponsible foolish claim from a bozo that can't even punch his way out of a wet magnetics paper bag.  F*ck you for being such an idiot.  No matter how small the chances are, I don't want you to trigger off a "nutcase squared."  I figure that the percentage of emotionally and psychologically unstable people on these forums is much higher than that of the general population.

Take your stupid accusations and shove them up your ass, jackass!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 11:18:18 PM
I am REALLY AMAZED at this Scientific Rebuttal - MARKE overunity.com Pleb/OIL COMPANY TROLL: "Once again you are worse than wrong" vs World Class Physicist Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is INSIDE the Solenoid"

Nothing but FOOLISH NON-SENSE - MARKE STOP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF!!!

I have provided References and everything, yet still you refute it - What NON-SENSE!!!

I watched the clip and you clearly FAILED to understand what you were looking at.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 06, 2015, 11:41:57 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI
Minute 30:17
I quote REAL SCIENCE FOR THE DUMMIES AND BRAIN DEAD!!! Internationally Renowned World Class Physicist Walter Lewin.

"So the Magnetic Field is INSIDE the Solenoid"
So Walter Lewin said that magnetic field is inside a powered solenod.
Note, that he never said that it is "ONLY inside".

I never read that MarkE or MileHigh disagreed with anything Walter Lewin has said.  Did you?

What is your point anyway?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 11:43:41 PM
Let me tell you something Chris.   I stumbled across your clip on YouTube and saw how wrong it was so I challenged you.   Then I brought the debate here because it's an interesting exercise for the readers.  It was done to help inform the readers on this forum.  Since this thread has 'action' for sure people on the other two main forums are reading also.  And there are many second-tier forums where we can assume that people are reading.

The goal is to help people on all the forums to learn and dispel myths.  I think of the Energetic Forum and how so many bad ideas and concepts are entrenched there.  They exist on all the other forums also.  Many readers are so locked in by the peer group pressure that they will read this thread, and get the message, but they will still go on posting nonsense about the Bloch wall.  Hey if Bedini says there is Bloch wall in the center of a magnet you will get sliced and diced on the Energetic Forum if you post that you disagree.

So when you look at people, there may be people that disagree like you, there may be "secret converts" that agree with me but they don't dare say it, and their will be people that got the message loud and clear and they finally understand and they won't be afraid or ashamed to state it.

So, this thread can be qualified as a partial success.  And you have made yourself into a poster boy for people that refuse to listen and learn and keep pushing their nonsensical house of cards.  It's called pseudoscience, and you typify a hard-core glazed-eyed believer in nonsensical pseudoscience.  That's your right.  There is an old Weird Al Yankovic song which is a tribute to Devo called "Dare to be Stupid."

Now, a couple a years ago I was reading a forum.  This guy claimed that he had a magic pulse motor.  He said in all seriousness that if the Feds came for him that he was armed to the teeth and and he would barricade himself in his house and shoot it out to the death if need be.  A "Pulse Motor Ruby Ridge" in the making.

When I read that I said to myself that I would never reveal my real name or location on these forums.  The last thing I need is a f*cking nutcase stalking me and waiting to blow my head off.

So when you say I "work for Big Oil" I view that as an irresponsible foolish claim from a bozo that can't even punch his way out of a wet magnetics paper bag.  F*ck you for being such an idiot.  No matter how small the chances are, I don't want you to trigger off a "nutcase squared."  I figure that the percentage of emotionally and psychologically unstable people on these forums is much higher than that of the general population.

Take your stupid accusations and shove them up your ass, jackass!

MileHigh

MileHigh - You underestimated how much Ammunition I really had. You thought, oh just another idiot that has nothing. But alas, you have been Duped by your very own Assumptions!

This is why you write NON-Sense and have no facts to refute Real Science!

Anyone with the smallest inkling of common-sense will see the Facts I have provided to this Forum are UNDISPUTABLE. World Class Physicists Back Up my argument! You and MarkE have nothing remotely close to this fact!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 06, 2015, 11:50:19 PM
You have been asked repeatedly to describe how a magnet has a Bloch wall in the center and you can't.

I am pretty much done with this thread.  The points have been made, no point on going in circles.

Quote
World Class Physicists Back Up my argument! You and MarkE have nothing remotely close to this fact!

The above is a delusional statement.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 06, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
So Walter Lewin said that magnetic field is inside a powered solenod.
Note, that he never said that it is "ONLY inside".

I never read that MarkE or MileHigh disagreed with anything Walter Lewin has said.  Did you?

What is your point anyway?

NoBull, time for you to do a little more homework on the long solenoid!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 12:00:51 AM
You have been asked repeatedly to describe how a magnet has a Bloch wall in the center and you can't.

I am pretty much done with this thread.  The points have been made, no point on going in circles.

The above is a delusional statement.

MileHigh - a One-Liner to keep it simple for you!

ANYTHING that Constitutes a Lack of or Change of the conditions seen at each Pole, between the Poles of a Permanent Magnet, is a Bloch Wall or more commonly known as an Equator! PERIOD!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 07, 2015, 12:14:41 AM
NoBull, time for you to do a little more homework on the long solenoid!
Why?
Also, you did not answer my 2 questions.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 12:22:17 AM
EMJ,

Is it your understanding that a Bloch wall exists in a simple energized solenoid electromagnet?

What is your understanding of the characteristics of the magnetic field around an energized straight piece of wire?

.99

Appologies Poynt99 - I did miss your post.

1: Yes, every Magnetic Field that is Un-Interfered with has an Equator aka a Bloch Wall.
2: No different to standard Science - Moving Charge Carriers can constitute a Magnetic Field.

My previous post may also help answer your questions.

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 12:25:08 AM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Equater

Pardon?

I think you have the wrong definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_wall_%28magnetism%29#Bloch_wall

Webby1

2.  The celestial equator.
3.  (General Physics) See magnetic equator

"The magnetization rotates through the plane of the domain wall"

Please re-read your references!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 07, 2015, 12:30:26 AM



  EMJ,
        you're getting there bit by bit, that one-liner in reply 531 of yours is what they've
 been trying to tell you.
      Kirchoff  is for the birds!
                   John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 12:37:44 AM


  EMJ,
        you're getting there bit by bit, that one-liner in reply 531 of yours is what they've
 been trying to tell you.
      Kirchoff  is for the birds!
                   John.

Hi John,

I disagree, the Visual evidence also speaks for itself! If there is a hole in ones bucket, what does one do? Deny its there and just keep filling it with water?

Logic says NO, Plug your Hole is the first thing to do!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 07, 2015, 12:53:32 AM
Appologies Poynt99 - I did miss your post.

1: Yes, every Magnetic Field that is Un-Interfered with has an Equator aka a Bloch Wall.
2: No different to standard Science - Moving Charge Carriers can constitute a Magnetic Field.

My previous post may also help answer your questions.

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes

Thanks. Further to question 2, would you agree then that the magnetic field around a current-carrying wire is as shown in the attached pic?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:05:41 AM
Thanks. Further to question 2, would you agree then that the magnetic field around a current-carrying wire is as shown in the attached pic?

Poynt99 - yes.

I see where youre going. I have an answer for it already. So we will see how it plays out.

Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 07, 2015, 01:07:30 AM
A + C are the same value,only 180* out of phase. B has a value of 0.
A and C have a potential difference and B dose not.

What new (if any) conclusions have you been able to formulate from that?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:12:35 AM
What new (if any) conclusions have you been able to formulate from that?

That POSTULATIONS are being made!

http://physics.dorpstraat21.nl/experiments/magnetic%20field%20in%20a%20slinky

Notice:

Formula: The magnetic field B inside a long solenoid is B = musubo.n.I

NOTE: THIS DOES NOT HOLD TRUE FOR OUTSIDE THE SOLENOID!!!

On a Long Solenoid the Magnetic Field can NOT BE MEASURED AT ALL!!!

Again and again I support my debate with SCIENCE and REFERENCES!

You have nothing but Preposterous POSTULATIONS!!!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 07, 2015, 01:12:52 AM
Poynt99 - yes.

I see where youre going. I have an answer for it already. So we will see how it plays out.

Chris

Ok. ;)

If the wire is bent into a circle (as shown), do you agree that the field from the two halves combine to aid as shown in the attached pic?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:16:02 AM
Ok. ;)

If the wire is bent into a circle (as shown), do you agree that the field from the two halves combine to aid as shown in the attached pic?

So you're also now arguing that the Earth and a Bar Magnet is a Single Current Loop?

Again what happens when you add more than one, maybe say 1000? Have you the ability to do the experiment? The one I provided you the References and also the concepts to?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 07, 2015, 01:20:22 AM
So you're also now arguing that the Earth and a Bar Magnet is a Single Current Loop?

Again what happens when you add more than one, maybe say 1000? Have you the ability to do the experiment? The one I provided you the References and also the concepts to?

I'm asking questions only to understand your position.

Would you be in agreement with the pic?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:22:27 AM
I'm asking questions only to understand your position.

Would you be in agreement with the pic?

Would be agreement with my provided References and Experimental Proof?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 07, 2015, 01:27:33 AM
No problem, if you wish not to continue, that's ok.

I thought you might be interested in my train of thinking to see where it might lead, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Roger out.

.99  :)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:32:07 AM
No problem, if you wish not to continue, that's ok.

I thought you might be interested in my train of thinking to see where it might lead, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Roger out.

.99  :)

I have answered your questions, maybe you could be so courteous?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 01:35:47 AM
MARKE and others that cant comprehend REAL SCIENCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI

Minute 30:17

I quote REAL SCIENCE FOR THE DUMMIES AND BRAIN DEAD!!! Internationally Renowned World Class Physicist Walter Lewin.

"So the Magnetic Field is INSIDE the Solenoid"


Wait for it - DENIAL DENIAL DENIAL MARKE you OIL COMPANY TROLL!!!

You FOOL How can you DISPUTE FACT!!! You FOOL  ::) ::)
EMJUNKIE once again you are way off the mark.  That is one of many of Dr. Lewin's excellent lectures and it goes completely against your claims.  You apparently missed the entire first half of the lecture where Dr. Lewin taught that the emf developed is a function of the change in flux density with respect to time perpendicular to the conductor surface for each such surface.  In other words, perpendicular to the coil windings, IE parallel to the central axis for dipoles. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:36:46 AM
I wonder why modern Physics now draws Magnetic Field Lines like so:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:37:48 AM
EMJUNKIE once again you are way off the mark.  That is one of many of Dr. Lewin's excellent lectures and it goes completely against your claims.  You apparently missed the entire first half of the lecture where Dr. Lewin taught that the emf developed is a function of the change in flux density with respect to time perpendicular to the conductor surface for each such surface.  In other words, perpendicular to the coil windings, IE parallel to the central axis for dipoles.

MarkE you're off the MarkE - Experiment, know of the Term?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:40:06 AM
MarkE you're off the MarkE - Experiment, know of the Term?

How can this possibly be refuted: MarkEd in Red!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 01:42:20 AM
MileHigh - You underestimated how much Ammunition I really had. You thought, oh just another idiot that has nothing. But alas, you have been Duped by your very own Assumptions!

This is why you write NON-Sense and have no facts to refute Real Science!

Anyone with the smallest inkling of common-sense will see the Facts I have provided to this Forum are UNDISPUTABLE. World Class Physicists Back Up my argument! You and MarkE have nothing remotely close to this fact!
If you were to espouse the nonsense that you have here to anyone remotely of the caliber of Dr. Lewin, they would simply shake their head in disgust at what a poor job the educational system is doing.  Each time you claimed to present evidence what you presented failed to support your loopy pretend claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 01:45:01 AM
Appologies Poynt99 - I did miss your post.

1: Yes, every Magnetic Field that is Un-Interfered with has an Equator aka a Bloch Wall.
Worse than wrong.
Quote
2: No different to standard Science - Moving Charge Carriers can constitute a Magnetic Field.
Moving charge has an associated magnetic field.
Quote

My previous post may also help answer your questions.

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:46:59 AM
If you were to espouse the nonsense that you have here to anyone remotely of the caliber of Dr. Lewin, they would simply shake their head in disgust at what a poor job the educational system is doing.  Each time you claimed to present evidence what you presented failed to support your loopy pretend claims.

Very nicely worded but still you have NO Legs to stand on! Evidence again is not on your side! You have lost your Compass Race and been shot down, that Big Orange is still sitting beside you and you still refuse to prove it doesn't exist!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 01:48:59 AM
That POSTULATIONS are being made!

http://physics.dorpstraat21.nl/experiments/magnetic%20field%20in%20a%20slinky

Notice:

Formula: The magnetic field B inside a long solenoid is B = musubo.n.I

NOTE: THIS DOES NOT HOLD TRUE FOR OUTSIDE THE SOLENOID!!!

On a Long Solenoid the Magnetic Field can NOT BE MEASURED AT ALL!!!
Worse than wrong again.  Dr. Lewin did so in three different demonstrations in the very video that you linked.
Quote

Again and again I support my debate with SCIENCE and REFERENCES!
Again and again your own references refute your worse than wrong claims.
Quote

You have nothing but Preposterous POSTULATIONS!!!
It's quite obvious who keeps making preposterous claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 01:50:07 AM
I wonder why modern Physics now draws Magnetic Field Lines like so:
When do you think it ever changed?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 01:51:41 AM
How can this possibly be refuted: MarkEd in Red!!!
There is noting to refute in the picture.  It speaks for itself.  What it does not do is support your worse than wrong claim that it evidences a Bloch wall anywhere in the magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:52:29 AM
Worse than wrong again.  Dr. Lewin did so in three different demonstrations in the very video that you linked.Again and again your own references refute your worse than wrong claims.It's quite obvious who keeps making preposterous claims.

References MarkE come on rather than verbal Diarea give us the references: Minute and what was said! As I did!

Cant do it? Because your mess of words is wrong!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 01:52:42 AM
Very nicely worded but still you have NO Legs to stand on! Evidence again is not on your side! You have lost your Compass Race and been shot down, that Big Orange is still sitting beside you and you still refuse to prove it doesn't exist!
You can scream and shout your worse than wrong claims all day and all night and it will not make them any less wrong.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 01:55:18 AM
References MarkE come on rather than verbal Diarea give us the references: Minute and what was said! As I did!

Cant do it? Because your mess of words is wrong!
The single loop over the solenoid test, the three loop over the solenoid test, and the solenoid in the middle of the battery resistor circuit test all demonstrated a changing magnetic field registered proportionately into the surrounding wire loop(s).  Your game of playing a shrill moron is getting quite old.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 01:55:44 AM
When do you think it ever changed?

Hmmm, I wonder what SCIENCE is looking for here: http://astarmathsandphysics.com/a-level-physics-notes/experimental-physics/a-level-physics-notes-measuring-the-magnetic-field-inside-a-solenoid.html

More References and Scientific Proof!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 02:03:18 AM
Hmmm, I wonder what SCIENCE is looking for here: http://astarmathsandphysics.com/a-level-physics-notes/experimental-physics/a-level-physics-notes-measuring-the-magnetic-field-inside-a-solenoid.html

More References and Scientific Proof!!
You have linked yet another reference that does not offer any support to your loopy claimed ideas.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 02:05:12 AM
Hmmm, I wonder what SCIENCE is looking for here: http://astarmathsandphysics.com/a-level-physics-notes/experimental-physics/a-level-physics-notes-measuring-the-magnetic-field-inside-a-solenoid.html

More References and Scientific Proof!!

Wow I wonder what this Could Be MarkE? Awful lot like Howard Johnsons Picture!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 02:14:45 AM
Wow I wonder what this Could Be MarkE? Awful lot like Howard Johnsons Picture!!!

Which also looks reMarkEably like these:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 02:16:59 AM
Which also looks reMarkEably like these:

And these:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 02:19:47 AM
Wait for it - Denial, its coming...

"Pictures are not Pictures and Science is a spaghetti bowl and we are all worms..."
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 02:21:09 AM
Wow I wonder what this Could Be MarkE? Awful lot like Howard Johnsons Picture!!!
LOL, now we come full circle with you republishing the same pictures without anything to show that they support your loopy ideas. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 02:30:23 AM
LOL, now we come full circle with you republishing the same pictures without anything to show that they support your loopy ideas.

Hmmm Another Orange for you MarkE

A Brick falls and hits you in the head, but it wasn't a Brick because you don't believe in BRICKS!!! 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 02:35:33 AM
Hmmm Another Orange for you MarkE

A Brick falls and hits you in the head, but it wasn't a Brick because you don't believe in BRICKS!!!
So now you've linked a 45 page pdf that again does nothing to help you support your loopy claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 02:38:37 AM
So now you've linked a 45 page pdf that again does nothing to help you support your loopy claims.

That's all you've got?

Howard Johnson had technology working, all based on his work. I have the same! You have nothing but verbal Direa!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 02:44:44 AM
That's all you've got?

Howard Johnson had technology working all based on his work. I have the same! You have nothing but verbal Direa!
Howard Johnson went to his grave without ever closing the loop as he claimed and possibly even believed that he could.  You have completely failed to show supporting evidence for your loopy claims.  We can construct dipoles as large and in virtualy any aspect ratio you would like and you will not be able to use those to produce support for the "figure eight" idea, just as you have failed to do so up to this time.  I don't know who you may be trying to convince, because most of your audience seems to have given up on you and left.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 02:46:27 AM
Howard Johnson went to his grave without ever closing the loop as he claimed and possibly even believed that he could.  You have completely failed to show supporting evidence for your loopy claims.  We can construct dipoles as large and in virtualy any aspect ratio you would like and you will not be able to use those to produce support for the "figure eight" idea, just as you have failed to do so up to this time.  I don't know who you may be trying to convince, because most of your audience seems to have given up on you and left.

Oil Company Troll - You're A FOOL!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 02:48:59 AM
Oil Company Troll - You're A FOOL!
If you actually believed your gratuitous insults you would have to be feeling pretty bad considering that you have not been able to refute the physics that I and others have presented.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 07, 2015, 03:01:23 AM
Howard Johnson went to his grave without ever closing the loop as he claimed and possibly even believed that he could.  You have completely failed to show supporting evidence for your loopy claims.  We can construct dipoles as large and in virtualy any aspect ratio you would like and you will not be able to use those to produce support for the "figure eight" idea, just as you have failed to do so up to this time.  I don't know who you may be trying to convince, because most of your audience seems to have given up on you and left.
Once again Mark, the figure 8 claim was mine, and at this point in time, I have seen more evidence to support that tan I have of the continual field from one pole to another. Once again, ca I you post a video showing the field being mapped?.

Cheers
Brad
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 03:08:41 AM
Once again Mark, the figure 8 claim was mine, and at this point in time, I have seen more evidence to support that tan I have of the continual field from one pole to another. Once again, ca I you post a video showing the field being mapped?.

Cheers
Brad
Tinman EMJUNKIE has been promoting the loopy Bloch wall in the middle of a permanent magnet idea.  He's just doing a bad put-on act.

I have posted static picture sequences of mapping with an ordinary compass.  I suppose that I could hook up an analog Hall effect sensor to provide more resolution.  However I do not see the point when it should be absolutely clear that the field is essentially dead parallel to the dipole at the center when the figure eight hypothesis requires that it curls towards the dipole in that region.  If it is a question of resolution, I have lots of bar magnets and could string together a rather long composite magnet, and there will still be zero inclination of the compass to point anywhere but parallel to that structure anywhere close to the middle.  So what would be satisfactory to you?  A dipole 10X the diameter of the compass which is about what I've shown, or 20X or 50X?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 03:32:49 AM
If you actually believed your gratuitous insults you would have to be feeling pretty bad considering that you have not been able to refute the physics that I and others have presented.

Just stating another fact MarkE - by definition, You are a Fool!

I feel good to be honest, good that I have come in to this forum and had the ammo to blow your BAD SCIENCE out of the water.

I have provided all you asked, then you denied it! Youre a FOOL!

Village Idiot and lunatic

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes

P.S:

adjective
informal

adjective: fool
1. foolish; silly.

verb fool; 3rd person present: fools; past tense: fooled; past participle: fooled; gerund or present participle: fooling
1. trick or deceive (someone); dupe.
"don't be fooled into paying out any more of your hard-earned cash"

synonyms: deceive, trick, play a trick on, hoax, dupe, take in, mislead, delude, hoodwink, bluff, beguile, gull

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 03:39:07 AM
Just stating another fact MarkE - by definition, You are a Fool!

I feel good to be honest, good that I have come in to this forum and had the ammo to blow your BAD SCIENCE out of the water.

I have provided all you asked, then you denied it! Youre a FOOL!

Village Idiot and lunatic

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes

P.S:

adjective
informal

adjective: fool
1. foolish; silly.

verb fool; 3rd person present: fools; past tense: fooled; past participle: fooled; gerund or present participle: fooling
1. trick or deceive (someone); dupe.
"don't be fooled into paying out any more of your hard-earned cash"

synonyms: deceive, trick, play a trick on, hoax, dupe, take in, mislead, delude, hoodwink, bluff, beguile, gull, make a fool of
Despite all of your proclamations and claims evidence is simply against you.  Rant on to your heart's content.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 03:40:35 AM
Despite all of your proclamations and claims evidence is simply against you.  Rant on to your heart's content.

You just keep FOOLING yourself MarkE!  ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 03:49:40 AM
You just keep FOOLING yourself MarkE!  ;)

Oh no not more:

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:00:35 AM
Oh no not more:

Ohhh look, someone has done a video with yet MORE Supporting evidence!!! Not bad sing along there too!

Yes More Evidence

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWOKefrcpAg

Note: Roy Davis (Professional Engineer) worked with Howard Johnson also a Professional Engineer! MarkE are YOU a professional Engineer? Yet you refute an Engineers Hard Science?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 07, 2015, 04:07:55 AM
EM Junkie
here is a version our friend Johan 1955 recently sent , he also plays and thinks  outside the Box ! With "WATER FUEL".....and other things.


thanks for your contributions and sharing your work .
Chet
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 04:16:25 AM
Ohhh look, someone has done a video with yet MORE Supporting evidence!!! Not bad sing along there too!

Yes More Evidence

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWOKefrcpAg

Note: Roy Davis (Professional Engineer) worked with Howard Johnson also a Professional Engineer! MarkE are YOU a professional Engineer? Yet you refute an Engineers Hard Science?
You can keep posting junk that is demonstrably wrong all day long and it will not make it correct.  It just makes you look more and more foolish.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:16:53 AM
EM Junkie
here is a version our friend Johan 1955 recently sent , he also plays and thinks  outside the Box !
With "WATER FUEL".....and other things.


thanks for your contributions and sharing your work .
Chet

Chet, its a pleasure to share it! Common-sense and experiment will prevail as it did with the Flat Earth theory held for so long!

Have a good Day!

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:17:51 AM
You can keep posting junk that is demonstrably wrong all day long and it will not make it correct.  It just makes you look more and more foolish.

And MarkE, You can keep talking Piffle that is demonstrably wrong all day long and it will not make it correct.  It just makes you look more and more foolish.

P.S: Piffle - definition

 nonsense.
"it's absolute piffle to say that violence is ok"

synonyms: nonsense, rubbish, garbage, claptrap, balderdash, blather, blether, moonshine;

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:22:15 AM
You can keep posting junk that is demonstrably wrong all day long and it will not make it correct.  It just makes you look more and more foolish.

MarkE, care to explain what's going on here:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:22:53 AM
Don't tell me, its hedge hogs, and meerkats
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 04:24:48 AM
MarkE, care to explain what's going on here:
Your first problem is that the current is parallel to the field orientation.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:25:48 AM
Don't tell me, its hedge hogs, and meerkats

This one too:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 04:26:25 AM
And MarkE, You can keep talking Piffle that is demonstrably wrong all day long and it will not make it correct.  It just makes you look more and more foolish.

P.S: Piffle - definition

 nonsense.
"it's absolute piffle to say that violence is ok"

synonyms: nonsense, rubbish, garbage, claptrap, balderdash, blather, blether, moonshine;
LOL, the trouble there is that I and others have shown again and again that what we are saying is backed by 200 years of theory and experiment.  You on the other hand keep posting things as references that fail to support your loopy ideas. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:27:25 AM
Your first problem is that the current is parallel to the field orientation.

And the hedge hogs are bumping into meerkats? at the Bloc...?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:29:33 AM
LOL, the trouble there is that I and others have shown again and again that what we are saying is backed by 200 years of theory and experiment.  You on the other hand keep posting things as references that fail to support your loopy ideas.

MarkE, you have proven NOTHING! We all know already that Compasses work! We all know that One Iron Filing will attract another!

YOU have proven nuda, not a single thing!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 04:46:57 AM
MarkE, you have proven NOTHING! We all know already that Compasses work!
Since you admit that compasses work.  And since I have shown as have thousands before me that a compass needle aligns to the local magnetic field.  And since I have shown as have thousands before me that the compass aligns parallel to a dipole near its center, then it follows that the field near the dipole center is parallel to the dipole there and not curled as you claim.  QED.
Quote
We all know that One Iron Filing will attract another!

YOU have proven nuda, not a single thing!
Your put on gag is old.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 04:47:52 AM
LOL, the trouble there is that I and others have shown again and again that what we are saying is backed by 200 years of theory and experiment.  You on the other hand keep posting things as references that fail to support your loopy ideas.

Gee, these people seem to be very definitive with this very detailed Compass Experiment!

I wonder what that big thing the show in the middle is? Did they say Magnetic Equator?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 05:26:48 AM
Gee, these people seem to be very definitive with this very detailed Compass Experiment!

I wonder what that big thing the show in the middle is? Did they say Magnetic Equator?
LOL, you've just posted yet another reference that is at complete odds with your claims.  Note that the compass' that lay along the equatorial projections point:  wait for it ... essentially parallel to the earth's magnetic dipole.  Note that the magnetic lines connect uninterrupted between the to magnetic poles.  Note that there is no curl from each pole to the magnetic equator.

When are you going to give up this put on act of yours?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 05:46:31 AM
Chris:

For the solenoid, if I can ask you to just look at just one clip, it's this one.  You will note adding and canceling magnetic field effects and how the field outside the coil loops from the north end back to the south end.  Of course it's much less dense outside the coil because it has to fill all of 3D space.

Then he uses Ampere's Law to calculate the field at the center of the solenoid. He does this by drawing an Amperian Loop to take a 'bite' out of the coil.  You then take a "walk around the loop" and do a summation to calculate the field - a closed-loop line integral.   It's a simple and elegant solution that is very easy on the difficulty scale for understanding and following integrals.

There is a part 2 but you can find it if you want to go the whole way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8)

Honesty, it's giving you the actual architecture of a coil.  Please look at it and see if it fits into your "world view."

Just for fun I have a 'litmus test' question for you, and the nature of this question would apply to your first pdf and other pdfs that you linked to.

These two equations describe how a coil works in an electronic circuit:

v = L di/dt

i = 1/L integral v dt

Are you familiar with them and do you understand them and ever use them?  If you understand them they give you more insight into how coils work.

I know that there is no point repeating this, but there is a wide gulf between what you "see" and what there really is.  I would hope that one day you bridge that gap.  Especially if you are interested in this stuff and have fun with it.  Like you could... Measure the value of an inductor with your scope.  Or you could measure how much energy you can store in a transformer core.  Doing things like that brings coils "down to earth" also.

I will leave you with this final thought:  When you get into your car, and put on the gas, it's like you are a coil.  lol  1/2 L i^2 = 1/2 M v^2!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 07, 2015, 05:55:47 AM
Tinman EMJUNKIE has been promoting the loopy Bloch wall in the middle of a permanent magnet idea.  He's just doing a bad put-on act.

I have posted static picture sequences of mapping with an ordinary compass.  I suppose that I could hook up an analog Hall effect sensor to provide more resolution.  However I do not see the point when it should be absolutely clear that the field is essentially dead parallel to the dipole at the center when the figure eight hypothesis requires that it curls towards the dipole in that region.  If it is a question of resolution, I have lots of bar magnets and could string together a rather long composite magnet, and there will still be zero inclination of the compass to point anywhere but parallel to that structure anywhere close to the middle.  So what would be satisfactory to you?  A dipole 10X the diameter of the compass which is about what I've shown, or 20X or 50X?
Mark
Here is the problems I have with the compass test-1i have mentioned before with the two magnets with a spacer between them will show the same result, even though we know fore sure there is both poles present. The second is this-my compass needle will swing toward a magnets pole over 3 feet away insted of showing earths north/south fields.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 06:09:35 AM
LOL, you've just posted yet another reference that is at complete odds with your claims.  Note that the compass' that lay along the equatorial projections point:  wait for it ... essentially parallel to the earth's magnetic dipole.  Note that the magnetic lines connect uninterrupted between the to magnetic poles.  Note that there is no curl from each pole to the magnetic equator.

When are you going to give up this put on act of yours?

To All following!

I propose something crazy!

All Magnetic Fields are drawn throughout history to represent the Iron Filing Experiment. The Iron Filing Experiment is the Basis for Closed Line Magnetic Fields.

Does everyone agree with this Crazy fact?

Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 06:11:00 AM
Chris:

For the solenoid, if I can ask you to just look at just one clip, it's this one.  You will note adding and canceling magnetic field effects and how the field outside the coil loops from the north end back to the south end.  Of course it's much less dense outside the coil because it has to fill all of 3D space.

Then he uses Ampere's Law to calculate the field at the center of the solenoid. He does this by drawing an Amperian Loop to take a 'bite' out of the coil.  You then take a "walk around the loop" and do a summation to calculate the field - a closed-loop line integral.   It's a simple and elegant solution that is very easy on the difficulty scale for understanding and following integrals.

There is a part 2 but you can find it if you want to go the whole way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8)

Honesty, it's giving you the actual architecture of a coil.  Please look at it and see if it fits into your "world view."

Just for fun I have a 'litmus test' question for you, and the nature of this question would apply to your first pdf and other pdfs that you linked to.

These two equations describe how a coil works in an electronic circuit:

v = L di/dt

i = 1/L integral v dt

Are you familiar with them and do you understand them and ever use them?  If you understand them they give you more insight into how coils work.

I know that there is no point repeating this, but there is a wide gulf between what you "see" and what there really is.  I would hope that one day you bridge that gap.  Especially if you are interested in this stuff and have fun with it.  Like you could... Measure the value of an inductor with your scope.  Or you could measure how much energy you can store in a transformer core.  Doing things like that bring coils "down to earth" also.

I will leave you with this final thought:  When you get into your car, and put on the gas, it's like you are a coil.  lol  1/2 L i^2 = 1/2 M v^2!

MileHigh

MileHigh - Brilliant Work! Its your best yet! What are the Red Bits?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 06:14:42 AM
Mark
Here is the problems I have with the compass test-1i have mentioned before with the two magnets with a spacer between them will show the same result, even though we know fore sure there is both poles present. The second is this-my compass needle will swing toward a magnets pole over 3 feet away insted of showing earths north/south fields.
Tinman, let's see if we can get to a test that we agree upon.

Do you agree that if we take two dipole magnets and separate them by a large distance that a compass will show the curl at the near poles of each?
Do you agree that if we bring them together such that they look like just one magnet that effect disappears?
Do you then agree that if we make a very long magnet and that it shows only flattenening, IE becoming more parallel as we approach the center that will mean that there is no curling towards the center?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 06:16:55 AM
Mark
Here is the problems I have with the compass test-1i have mentioned before with the two magnets with a spacer between them will show the same result, even though we know fore sure there is both poles present. The second is this-my compass needle will swing toward a magnets pole over 3 feet away insted of showing earths north/south fields.

For the two magnets with the spacer in between them, here is where the "poles" analogy breaks down.  The applies when the gap between the magnets is relatively small.  The best way to look at this is the north pole is at the end of one magnet and the south pole is at the end of the other magnet:

[N>>>>>>>]==[>>>>>>>S]

Or perhaps even better this:

[N>>>>>>>]>>[>>>>>>>S]

The majority of the magnetic flux in the gap goes from one magnet to the other.  In that sense the two magnets look much more like a single magnet than they look like two magnets.

So when you look at what is taking place in the gap, is it north and south?  Or north-south?  You have kind of lost your frame of reference for describing something as a "pole."   A "pole" is always at the "free end" of a magnet.   The bulk of the magnetic field between the magnets is "trapped."  So in that sense there is not a north pole and a south pole facing each other in the gap in the way one would normally associate that concept.

Then what happens in the limit as the gap gets smaller and smaller?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 06:18:31 AM
MileHigh - Brilliant Work! Its your best yet! What are the Red Bits?

If you don't want to be serious, that's up to you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 06:22:22 AM
If you don't want to be serious, that's up to you.

I have been MileHigh, for about 70 odd posts!

I am going to go back to one of them, the Long Solenoid Experiment carried out by Science every day disposes your drawing! I am sorry but it is true!

I am really sorry that you and MarkE are having to debate what you believe to be true!

Like I have always said, Experiment is proof and nothing else can refute Experiment. Physics has real MEASURED DATA to ensure there is no Piffle in these Experiments! Long Solenoid Experiment Wins.

Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 06:27:31 AM
Tinman, let's see if we can get to a test that we agree upon.

MarkE - The ONLY thing you can agree on is what you want to, and it has nothing to do with facts!

Do you agree that if we take two dipole magnets and separate them by a large distance that a compass will show the curl at the near poles of each?
Do you agree that if we bring them together such that they look like just one magnet that effect disappears?
Do you then agree that if we make a very long magnet and that it shows only flattenening, IE becoming more parallel as we approach the center that will mean that there is no curling towards the center?

All this stuff is piffle taken out of context or rubbish you have made up!

Agree to disagree of are we going to talk about hedge hogs again?

Do you agree that all your science is based upon the Iron Filing experiment?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 06:28:12 AM
Chris, so why is being in a car like being in a coil?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 06:29:47 AM
MileHigh - I just thought its how you might "Travel"?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 06:32:26 AM
It's a dead serious question.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 06:32:42 AM
I have been MileHigh, for about 70 odd posts!

I am going to go back to one of them, the Long Solenoid Experiment carried out by Science every day disposes your drawing! I am sorry but it is true!

I am really sorry that you and MarkE are having to debate what you believe to be true!

Like I have always said, Experiment is proof and nothing else can refute Experiment. Physics has real MEASURED DATA to ensure there is no Piffle in these Experiments! Long Solenoid Experiment Wins.

Regards

  Chris
It's hilarious that you say that, because each experiment you have offered, including three of them in Professor Lewin's excellent lecture all refute your loopy claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 06:34:45 AM
It's a dead serious question.

Milehigh - How else would you "Travel through the middle of the Magnet"? Personally I have a Quantum Auto, some might call it a Car?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 06:39:23 AM
Milehigh - How else would you "Travel through the middle of the Magnet"? Personally I have a Quantum Auto, some might call it a Car?

Here is the big clue:  Forget the magnetic field for a second.  Think in terms of energy only.

Please give it a shot, it's actually very important.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 06:41:00 AM
It's hilarious that you say that, because each experiment you have offered, including three of them in Professor Lewin's excellent lecture all refute your loopy claims.

Oh MarkE - Here we go again! I think you may still have had your Eyes, Ears, and a few other things Closed during the Time of this Lecture!

Really, I have provided how many Links, all showing the same thing!

Others have done the same thing!

You refute these facts simply because you have nothing to backup your Compass experiment or your Iron Filing Experiment!

MarkE - Anyone here can go and do the research, see that your FOOLING them! Its not hard to see this fact already!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 06:45:56 AM
Here is the big clue:  Forget the magnetic field for a second.  Think in terms of energy only.

Please give it a shot, it's actually very important.

MileHigh, have you spent 1 second here in this debate thinking outside the BOX? Maybe you are also FOOLING yourself! Perhaps there are other places in Science that Refute the Iron Filing Experiment? Oh that's right I have provided many!

MileHigh, you don't know how Important it really is!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 07:04:29 AM
MileHigh, have you spent 1 second here in this debate thinking outside the BOX? Maybe you are also FOOLING yourself! Perhaps there are other places in Science that Refute the Iron Filing Experiment? Oh that's right I have provided many!

MileHigh, you don't know how Important it really is!

It's important to understand the energy dynamics of an inductor.

When you push on the accelerator, that push is like putting voltage across an inductor.  You speed up, and the speed is like the current flowing through the coil.  They both behave the same way.  The mass of the car is equivalent to the Henries value for the inductor.  When you put on the beaks it's like putting a resistor across the inductor.

The classic mechanical analogy for an inductor is a massless spring.  But I think it's important to understand the "mass in motion" analogies also.  Instead of a moving mass, a rotating flywheel is an equivalent and perhaps more common analogy.  Search on something like "inductor mechanical equivalent" or "spring-inductor analogy" or "inductor modeled as a flywheel."  You can do similar searches for a capacitor.

This may be new to you so you should have some fun reading up on it.  It will give you more insight.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 07:04:55 AM
Oh MarkE - Here we go again! I think you may still have had your Eyes, Ears, and a few other things Closed during the Time of this Lecture!

Really, I have provided how many Links, all showing the same thing!

Others have done the same thing!
You have pointed to many references:  None that support your loopy ideas with any reliable evidence.  The references that have included reliable evidence have either had nothing to do with your claims or have refuted them.
Quote

You refute these facts simply because you have nothing to backup your Compass experiment or your Iron Filing Experiment!
These sort of silly comments all betray that you are just putting on a show.
Quote

MarkE - Anyone here can go and do the research, see that your FOOLING them! Its not hard to see this fact already!
What you call fact is sheer fantasy.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 07, 2015, 07:16:27 AM
Tinman, let's see if we can get to a test that we agree upon.

Do you then agree that if we make a very long magnet and that it shows only flattenening, IE becoming more parallel as we approach the center that will mean that there is no curling towards the center?
No Mark ,I dont agree with this. Once again, if there is both a north field and a south field curling into the center, then you have an equal and opposite, and the net result is 0 field. So which end of the compass do you expect to point to the center?.
Once again the compass needle will be attracted to the opposite field of the magnet.
A compass is designed to show the opposite field by way of attraction. It is not designed to follow a dipole line or show a field around a magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 07:48:48 AM
You can't see the forest for the trees Tinman.  What does a compass do in real life?  It lines itself up with the Earth's magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 07:49:30 AM
No Mark ,I dont agree with this. Once again, if there is both a north field and a south field curling into the center, then you have an equal and opposite, and the net result is 0 field. So which end of the compass do you expect to point to the center?.
Once again the compass needle will be attracted to the opposite field of the magnet.
A compass is designed to show the opposite field by way of attraction. It is not designed to follow a dipole line or show a field around a magnet.
Vector addition is a good thing.  See if you agree with what is depicted in the drawing below:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 07, 2015, 08:27:16 AM
@Chris
I was thinking about your posts and I do agree with some of it just as I agree with some of what your critics have said. The problem I see is that most here keep changing the context for instance we are speaking of iron filings around a magnet, then a compass and finally we see an example using a coil to justify the pattern of iron filings around a permanent magnet.

In any case I think I have found part of the answer to this debate, a PM may have most of the domains aligned internally producing an external field...yes. When using a compass or iron filings to plot the field we see a pattern leaving one pole following parallel lines with the magnetic dipole to the opposite pole...yes. In fact most of what they said is correct in a conventional sense however that is not what were talking about.
Here is the validation which I believe may solve all our issues. First we are not speaking of a PM nor a coil we are interested in the external magnetic field and fundamentally we have a very big problem. I will just lay the justification out in point form for clarity.

1) A PM has two ends we call poles which have different field properties, ie North and South pole.
2) We know the pole magnetic field properties are differerent because they repel and attract one another--- logically they cannot be the same or nothing would happen.
3) As they are not the same then one field property must transition to the other field property at some point near the center point of the field.
4) Logically there can only be two possibilities: a) the fields have different properties and transition from one to the other near the field center or b)the properties of the fields are the same and it is impossible for repulsion and attractive forces to occur.
5) As we can see it is a violation of both logic and reason for anyone to imply one property or condition can change to another property of condition and not "Change" at some point within that space.
6) When something changes it takes time and space as one thing cannot instantaneously change to another thing and this is supported by conventional science and observable facts.
7) As the external field polarity does change from one to the other near the external field center then we have proven that at this point it must be both polarities occupying the same space or neither polarities during the transition within the space. We cannot say it changes but does not change ...obviously.

As we can see it is illogical that anyone would agree the pole properties are fundamentally different then state they do not change within the space between the poles. It is like saying yes it changes but no it doesn't, so yes the external field may appear parallel to the magnet in the iron filings experiment but fundamentally we know as a fact the external field changes polarity near the center region. I believe this polarity transition is why we see the external field change geometry when other methods of measurement are utilized.

On another note we have 200 years of science which proves our case---
I throw a ball up, it stops and comes down but at some point when it stops it is neither rising nor falling-- it is neither. An electron(-) couples to a proton(+) at which point the external field is considered neutral. I have a ruler with one end on the left and one end on the right but at some point exactly in the center down to the subatomic level it must be neither left nor right or both because we have already defined that it has changed (left/right) therefore it must. We have a magnet with a North field polarity and a South field polarity and at some point near the center it must be both or neither because we have already defined that it has changed therefore it must at some point. I mean I could go on for days because all our science and observations tell us this is the case, it is the foundation on which it rests.

Here is a though experiment which may explain the illusion many others are seeing. Let's take a yard long magnet with a center, a North pole on the left side of center and a South pole on the right side of center. Now let's place the long magnet center a distance from our nose and move the magnet to the left at which point we may see the North pole get weaker but the South pole get stronger. When we move the magnet to the right we see the South pole get weaker but the North pole get stronger. We can move the long magnet left or right and one pole always gets weaker in proportion to the other pole getting stronger.

Thus if our nose was a magnet or compass needle the long magnet center region could be neutral or neither North or South polarity however the compass would not perceive it and change because the compass needle magnet would see the two end poles as equally strong. The compass does not align with the weakest field strength but the strongest so of course it must always point towards the poles regardless of whether the field changes at the center or not. The argument that the compass needle should point towards a lack of field strength seems kind of absurd in my opinion. The strongest pole always couples to the strongest pole which is what the compass is showing us nothing more.
AC
 
 
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 08:45:35 AM
Here's a goodie!  I love the Google image search!  Piracy on the high seas!  lol
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 08:56:21 AM
You have pointed to many references:  None that support your loopy ideas with any reliable evidence.  The references that have included reliable evidence have either had nothing to do with your claims or have refuted them.These sort of silly comments all betray that you are just putting on a show.What you call fact is sheer fantasy.

MarkE - It looks like a copy Paste? Anything new to add or is this your Scientific Rebuttal? Anything to add to this debate of value?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 08:57:38 AM
Here's a goodie!  I love the Google image search!  Piracy on the high seas!  lol

MileHigh - I have to admit, you're light years ahead of MarkE! Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 09:09:40 AM
@Chris
I was thinking about your posts and I do agree with some of it just as I agree with some of what your critics have said. The problem I see is that most here keep changing the context for instance we are speaking of iron filings around a magnet, then a compass and finally we see an example using a coil to justify the pattern of iron filings around a permanent magnet.

In any case I think I have found part of the answer to this debate, a PM may have most of the domains aligned internally producing an external field...yes. When using a compass or iron filings to plot the field we see a pattern leaving one pole following parallel lines with the magnetic dipole to the opposite pole...yes. In fact most of what they said is correct in a conventional sense however that is not what were talking about.
Here is the validation which I believe may solve all our issues. First we are not speaking of a PM nor a coil we are interested in the external magnetic field and fundamentally we have a very big problem. I will just lay the justification out in point form for clarity.

1) A PM has two ends we call poles which have different field properties, ie North and South pole.
2) We know the pole magnetic field properties are differerent because they repel and attract one another--- logically they cannot be the same or nothing would happen.
3) As they are not the same then one field property must transition to the other field property at some point near the center point of the field.
4) Logically there can only be two possibilities: a) the fields have different properties and transition from one to the other near the field center or b)the properties of the fields are the same and it is impossible for repulsion and attractive forces to occur.
5) As we can see it is a violation of both logic and reason for anyone to imply one property or condition can change to another property of condition and not "Change" at some point within that space.
6) When something changes it takes time and space as one thing cannot instantaneously change to another thing and this is supported by conventional science and observable facts.
7) As the external field polarity does change from one to the other near the external field center then we have proven that at this point it must be both polarities occupying the same space or neither polarities during the transition within the space. We cannot say it changes but does not change ...obviously.

As we can see it is illogical that anyone would agree the pole properties are fundamentally different then state they do not change within the space between the poles. It is like saying yes it changes but no it doesn't, so yes the external field may appear parallel to the magnet in the iron filings experiment but fundamentally we know as a fact the external field changes polarity near the center region. I believe this polarity transition is why we see the external field change geometry when other methods of measurement are utilized.

On another note we have 200 years of science which proves our case---
I throw a ball up, it stops and comes down but at some point when it stops it is neither rising nor falling-- it is neither. An electron(-) couples to a proton(+) at which point the external field is considered neutral. I have a ruler with one end on the left and one end on the right but at some point exactly in the center down to the subatomic level it must be neither left nor right or both because we have already defined that it has changed (left/right) therefore it must. We have a magnet with a North field polarity and a South field polarity and at some point near the center it must be both or neither because we have already defined that it has changed therefore it must at some point. I mean I could go on for days because all our science and observations tell us this is the case, it is the foundation on which it rests.

Here is a though experiment which may explain the illusion many others are seeing. Let's take a yard long magnet with a center, a North pole on the left side of center and a South pole on the right side of center. Now let's place the long magnet center a distance from our nose and move the magnet to the left at which point we may see the North pole get weaker but the South pole get stronger. When we move the magnet to the right we see the South pole get weaker but the North pole get stronger. We can move the long magnet left or right and one pole always gets weaker in proportion to the other pole getting stronger.

Thus if our nose was a magnet or compass needle the long magnet center region could be neutral or neither North or South polarity however the compass would not perceive it and change because the compass needle magnet would see the two end poles as equally strong. The compass does not align with the weakest field strength but the strongest so of course it must always point towards the poles regardless of whether the field changes at the center or not. The argument that the compass needle should point towards a lack of field strength seems kind of absurd in my opinion. The strongest pole always couples to the strongest pole which is what the compass is showing us nothing more.
AC
EMJUNKIE has been arguing:

1) That there is a Bloch wall across the middle of a dipole magnet.  A Bloch wall slicing anywhere through a dipole perpendicular to it as EMJUNKIE insists he measures with magnetic paper in his video would require a different orientation of the magnetic domains on either side of the wall.  It is well established that in a strongly magnetized sample, most of the domains are in common alignment.  There is no Bloch wall between adjacent domains that share the same alignment.

2) That the field external to a dipole magnet loops not contiguously from pole to pole, but from each pole to the dipole center.  He cites the non-peer reviewed junk publication from Cheniere as his source, despite that fantasy being completely discredited by countless reliable sources including Dr. Lewin's MIT physics lecture series.  This bit of fantasy would require observations that are not seen, including a strong field curl at the mid point of a dipole. 

3) He insists that iron filings do not map field lines around a magnet accurately because he claims their presence alters the field contours radically.  Mathematically this is a ridiculous claim.  Practically it is doubly stupid because non other than EMJUNKIE uses magnetic paper to try and map magnetic fields.  If you are not familiar with magnetic paper, it contains grains of highly permeable nickle flakes suspended in fluid cells formed between two sheets of plastic.  IOW it is iron filings held captive.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 09:11:43 AM
MarkE - It looks like a copy Paste? Anything new to add or is this your Scientific Rebuttal? Anything to add to this debate of value?
LOL, you have shot yourself in the feet so many times already it is a wonder that you have any way to stand.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 09:29:24 AM
AC:

How about we look at magnetic fields like this:  The field lines travel in circles, or closed loops to be more precise.  When you are on a circle, there is no start or end.  There is no distinguishing boundary of any sort.  When you move around the circle, sometimes you are moving away from an observer, and sometimes you are moving towards the observer.  This moving away and moving towards does not represent two distinct entities.  So we arbitrarily can define "north" as the field direction pointing towards you, or "south" as the field direction pointing away from you.  But as you can see, there is only one field.

When we make coils and stuff like that we are distorting the normally circular field into some rubbery bunch of spaghetti strands.  But ultimately it is still a circular field at heart.  It's ONE field, period.  So there is no "transition point," ever.  It may appear to be like that but when you step back and simplify, it's still a circle with no start and no end, but it does have the property of direction.

So in a way it's all a giant tempest in a teapot to "worry" about north and south magnetic fields.  There is only one magnetic field.  That's the "great leap forward" when you realize that.

Going back to basics:  The magnetic field around a long straight wire looks like a set of coaxial cylinders progressively larger in diameter and weaker as the diameter gets larger.  When we put two current-carrying wires next to each other, then you have a force between the two wires.

So all of the electromagnets, motors, pulse motors, and so on, are just that strait wire contorted into different shapes producing a contorted, but ultimately circular, magnetic field.  And from the two parallel wires we know that when two separate magnetic fields interact they can produce a mutual force between each other.  So you start with "one" and contort it all over the place, and you still are left with "one."

It's all just one big bowl of spaghetti where the special feature is that the spaghetti is all loops.

MileHigh

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjLXyqD3lvI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjLXyqD3lvI)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 07, 2015, 10:10:30 AM
@MH
Quote
How about we look at magnetic fields like this:  The field lines travel in
circles, or closed loops to be more precise.  When you are on a circle, there is
no start or end.  There is no distinguishing boundary of any sort.  When you
move around the circle, sometimes you are moving away from an observer, and
sometimes you are moving towards the observer.  This moving away and moving
towards does not represent two distinct entities.  So we arbitrarily can define
"north" as the field direction pointing towards you, or "south" as the field
direction pointing away from you.  But as you can see, there is only one field.
You know ten years ago I would have agreed with all you have said completely as they say by the book, five years ago I may have found some critiques and we have been down that road however at present I have no idea what your talking about. I have been down this road your on and I always ended up right back where I started so I stopped doing it. I found the answers I was looking for and they are not like yours, let's just leave it at that because there is no going back nor do I wish to.
To be honest just after I could finally look up to the stars and understand all that's going on that I could never see or understand I lost my faith in humanity. There is no way out of this quagmire, no rainbow, no difference in anything I could do that matters. Just enjoy the ride, come here every so often and mix it up with you guys, howl at the moon, lol.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 11:44:08 AM
@Chris
I was thinking about your posts and I do agree with some of it just as I agree with some of what your critics have said. The problem I see is that most here keep changing the context for instance we are speaking of iron filings around a magnet, then a compass and finally we see an example using a coil to justify the pattern of iron filings around a permanent magnet.

@AC - Very Nice! You are quite possibly the most logical person on OverUinty.com!!!

I agree with nearly all you have said. I too don't disagree with all of what they have written. I agree that Magnetic Flux of opposite Polarity's attract each other. Facts are Facts, Magnetics are still Magnetics. I am not claiming anything that is not already been brought forward by others!

In any case I think I have found part of the answer to this debate, a PM may have most of the domains aligned internally producing an external field...yes. When using a compass or iron filings to plot the field we see a pattern leaving one pole following parallel lines with the magnetic dipole to the opposite pole...yes. In fact most of what they said is correct in a conventional sense however that is not what were talking about.
Here is the validation which I believe may solve all our issues. First we are not speaking of a PM nor a coil we are interested in the external magnetic field and fundamentally we have a very big problem. I will just lay the justification out in point form for clarity.

1) A PM has two ends we call poles which have different field properties, ie North and South pole.
2) We know the pole magnetic field properties are differerent because they repel and attract one another--- logically they cannot be the same or nothing would happen.
3) As they are not the same then one field property must transition to the other field property at some point near the center point of the field.
4) Logically there can only be two possibilities: a) the fields have different properties and transition from one to the other near the field center or b)the properties of the fields are the same and it is impossible for repulsion and attractive forces to occur.
5) As we can see it is a violation of both logic and reason for anyone to imply one property or condition can change to another property of condition and not "Change" at some point within that space.
6) When something changes it takes time and space as one thing cannot instantaneously change to another thing and this is supported by conventional science and observable facts.
7) As the external field polarity does change from one to the other near the external field center then we have proven that at this point it must be both polarities occupying the same space or neither polarities during the transition within the space. We cannot say it changes but does not change ...obviously.

I am sure no-one disputes the Fact that the Earth has an Equator because of its Magnetic Field?

I said:

ANYTHING that Constitutes a Lack of or Change of the conditions seen at each Pole, between the Poles of a Permanent Magnet, is a Bloch Wall or more commonly known as an Equator!

This statement agrees with all you have said! At the Poles we have a Flux Polarity, like you pointed out! Flux Density is clearly much lower at the Equator, I pointed this out earlier on, approximately 70% just in the average Iron Filing picture.

It doesn't matter about anything else other than the Magnetic Field, it is this, that is the topic!

As we can see it is illogical that anyone would agree the pole properties are fundamentally different then state they do not change within the space between the poles. It is like saying yes it changes but no it doesn't, so yes the external field may appear parallel to the magnet in the iron filings experiment but fundamentally we know as a fact the external field changes polarity near the center region. I believe this polarity transition is why we see the external field change geometry when other methods of measurement are utilized.

I agree here, the problem is that most of my "Critics" believe each Flux Line to be a Piece of string, strung between the poles!

We are seeing a very basic approach to a something that needs a bit more thought! It is basic and no doubt something that can be easily deuced by some hard work. The problem is that it should not be taken for granted and assumptions only get people into trouble!

Magnetic Monopoles were predicted by Paul Dirac in 1931. Synthetic Monopoles have been created in the Lab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HSDoIf5FY2s

Here in lies an amazing fact, a singular North Pole can exist with no corresponding South Pole, the same is true in reverse. It is Fact that a polarity of the pole exists! Weather this polarity is a Spin based phenomena is another debate.

Here is a though experiment which may explain the illusion many others are seeing. Let's take a yard long magnet with a center, a North pole on the left side of center and a South pole on the right side of center. Now let's place the long magnet center a distance from our nose and move the magnet to the left at which point we may see the North pole get weaker but the South pole get stronger. When we move the magnet to the right we see the South pole get weaker but the North pole get stronger. We can move the long magnet left or right and one pole always gets weaker in proportion to the other pole getting stronger.

AC, this is correct! All I have shown with the Ferrofluid shows this with no doubt to normal individuals with the slightest common sense!

Thus if our nose was a magnet or compass needle the long magnet center region could be neutral or neither North or South polarity however the compass would not perceive it and change because the compass needle magnet would see the two end poles as equally strong. The compass does not align with the weakest field strength but the strongest so of course it must always point towards the poles regardless of whether the field changes at the center or not.

Again this is all Logical!

The argument that the compass needle should point towards a lack of field strength seems kind of absurd in my opinion. The strongest pole always couples to the strongest pole which is what the compass is showing us nothing more.

Again this is all Logical! Again common sense!

I think this is incomplete, however! For example, ferromagnetic material can carry Flux in more that one direction, even when one direction is saturated already.

For example, take two Neo's, one length of Iron bar, Place the Iron Bar between the Neo Magnets, in attraction mode so the Flux would conventionally be entirely contained in the lower Reluctance medium, being the Iron Bar.

Here in lies my problem, Magnetic Field Lines do not always curl back to the opposite Pole! Even Iron Filings show a 70% loss and Iron has a permeability of 1000 depending on the composite...

We have issues, issues with the Magnetic Field not doing what conventional science thinks its supposed to do. Magnetics says Magnetic Field Lines are always on enclosure on them selves, but we can see this is not the case. Conventional Science is incomplete! The answers are out there.

Kind Regards

  Chris

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 12:06:20 PM
Hello!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 07, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
@AC - Very Nice! You are quite possibly the most logical person on OverUinty.com!!!

I agree with nearly all you have said. I too don't disagree with all of what they have written. I agree that Magnetic Flux of opposite Polarity's attract each other. Facts are Facts, Magnetics are still Magnetics. I am not claiming anything that is not already been brought forward by others!

I am sure no-one disputes the Fact that the Earth has an Equator because of its Magnetic Field?
The earth's equator is a result of the tilt on its axis.  It is only a convenient navigation circumstance that the earth has a magnetic dipole somewhat perpendicular to its equator.
Quote

I said:

ANYTHING that Constitutes a Lack of or Change of the conditions seen at each Pole, between the Poles of a Permanent Magnet, is a Bloch Wall or more commonly known as an Equator!
This is yet another worse than wrong statement from your put on act.  Bloch walls are transition regions between adjacent unaligned magnetic domains.  They don't have anything to do with the earth's equator.
Quote

This statement agrees with all you have said! At the Poles we have a Flux Polarity, like you pointed out! Flux Density is clearly much lower at the Equator, I pointed this out earlier on, approximately 70% just in the average Iron Filing picture.

It doesn't matter about anything else other than the Magnetic Field, it is this, that is the topic!

I agree here, the problem is that most of my "Critics" believe each Flux Line to be a Piece of string, strung between the poles!
Most people here understand that the magnetic field extends contiguously through each of the two poles of a magnetic dipole.  Would you like a link to the Lewin lecture on the topic?
Quote

We are seeing a very basic approach to a something that needs a bit more thought! It is basic and no doubt something that can be easily deuced by some hard work. The problem is that it should not be taken for granted and assumptions only get people into trouble!
The delusions you promote are about as bad as itcan get.
Quote

Magnetic Monopoles were predicted by Paul Dirac in 1931. Synthetic Monopoles have been created in the Lab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HSDoIf5FY2s

Here in lies an amazing fact, a singular North Pole can exist with no corresponding South Pole, the same is true in reverse. It is Fact that a polarity of the pole exists! Weather this polarity is a Spin based phenomena is another debate.
By definition a dipole has two poles, placing your digression into the subject of monopoles a moot distraction from the topic of how fields distribute through and around the poles of a dipole.
Quote

AC, this is correct! All I have shown with the Ferrofluid shows this with no doubt to normal individuals with the slightest common sense!

Again this is all Logical!
If you think that your insisting on claims that your own evidence refutes is logical:  then have a party.
Quote

Again this is all Logical! Again common sense!

I think this is incomplete, however! For example, ferromagnetic material can carry Flux in more that one direction, even when one direction is saturated already.

For example, take two Neo's, one length of Iron bar, Place the Iron Bar between the Neo Magnets, in attraction mode so the Flux would conventionally be entirely contained in the lower Reluctance medium, being the Iron Bar.
Iron has high permeability.  It is not infinitely permeable.  It never carries all the magnetic flux of a magnet.  It can carry a high percentage of it.
Quote

Here in lies my problem, Magnetic Field Lines do not always curl back to the opposite Pole!
They do if there is not another magnet of sufficient strength nearby.
Quote
Even Iron Filings show a 70% loss and Iron has a permeability of 1000 depending on the composite...

We have issues, issues with the Magnetic Field not doing what conventional science thinks its supposed to do.
Whatever issues you have they are far more with you than they are with conventional physics.
Quote
Magnetics says Magnetic Field Lines are always on enclosure on them selves, but we can see this is not the case. Conventional Science is incomplete! The answers are out there.
There it is:  The argument from ignorance.
Quote

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 07, 2015, 12:56:42 PM
.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 07, 2015, 03:01:51 PM
I have answered your questions, maybe you could be so courteous?
Actually, you've answered only one of my two questions, and there would have been a third coming. But you have elected to derail our discussion.

But for the record, no I do not subscribe to your theories.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 07, 2015, 03:13:22 PM
@allcanadian

You are confusing the concept of magnetic flux density (a.k.a. "field") with the concept of force that this magnetic field exerts on ferromagnetic objects.

The force is proportional to the gradient of the magnetic flux density (field).  This force is not the field!

If you map the force exerted by a bar magnet on other ferromagnetic objects in its vicinity then this force disappears near the midpoint of the magnet ....but a high magnetic flux density ("field") can be still detected there.

This can be easily seen when a magnetic viewing film is put perpendicularly to the bar magnet near its midpoint...the film changes color there even when an iron ball does not experience any net force there, parallel to the bar magnet.

A Hall effect sensor indicates a strong magnetic field near the midpoint of a bar magnet despite the lack of a force on an iron ball placed there.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: itsu on January 07, 2015, 03:45:00 PM
.........

A Hall effect sensor indicates a strong magnetic field near the midpoint of a bar magnet despite the lack of a force on an iron ball placed there.


NoBull,   i tried that, but i can not confirm it  :o

the output of the Hall effect sensor UGN3503UA  shows a dip in the magnetic field near the midpoint of a bar magnet.
It shows what Tinman describes as a peanut shape field.

I think the field at the midpoint is spread out so much (like a sphere) in the midpoint causing this dip. Right?

The field polarity all along the magnet was the same, so starting left as north, it stays north all the way (with the dip in the middle) to right.

Or is my Hall sensor balancing itselve between the both poles?

Please if possible, try  this simple test yourselve.


Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 07, 2015, 05:41:17 PM
   From a very basic observation a permanent magnet is an increase in order.  Just like a capacitor is an increase in order.  Just like a planet is an increase in order.   This increase in order extends beyond the observable limits of the matter involved and is a condition of the aether or spacetime continuom.  This condition of the aether is called a field.  A magnetic field will produce an effect that counters energetic forces or radiative forces.  Not so different from a planet "attracting" an asteroid into an orbit.  Once the asteroid radiates enough energy or chaos it increases the gravitational field of the planet system.  Once the metal filing or compass needle comes to rest the magnetic field of the system is increased and the energy of the system is decreased.
  This is why a current produces a magnetic field.  The electrons moving randomly within the conductor move less randomly.  This less random movement is an increase in order therefore the increase in order manifests as a change in the condition of the aether we call the magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 07, 2015, 06:37:31 PM
@Nobull
Quote
A Hall effect sensor indicates a strong magnetic field near the midpoint of a bar magnet despite the lack of a force on an iron ball placed there.


Are you sure?
Maybe we need some real data rather than simply speculating what may be happening.


I used my analog hall effect probe to take the following measurements.


1)Hall face to pole face
I had the face of the hall sensor pointed at the North pole and moved the sensor slowly towards the north pole, down the side and past the south end of the 1" dia x 1" N42 neo magnet.
Note the field strength increases as I approach the north pole then when perpendicular to the end of the magnet the polarity switches abruptly. Moving down the side of the magnet the polarity is indicated as south and not changing. Then when the probe face is perpendicular to the south pole the polarity changes from south back to north on leaving the south pole.


We should note that when the front face of the all sensor is facing the north pole it indicates a north polarity and when the back side of the sensor is facing the south pole it also indicates north polarity.


2)Hall face to side near
Here I was pointing the hall sensor face at the side of the magnet and not towards the poles. I moved the hall sensor face down the side of the magnet with the sensor physically touching the magnet.


3)Hall face to side far
Here once again I was pointing the hall sensor face at the side of the magnet and not towards the poles. I moved the hall sensor face down the side of the magnet approximately one inch away from the magnet. I moved the probe by the magnet twice, N to S, which is why there are two separate deflections a distance apart on the graph.


I will let you guys decide what you think you see happening based on these measurements and if you want a specific measurement performed I can do that. I can also boost the field amplification on the sensor for very far or very sensitive field measurements.


Regards
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 07, 2015, 07:40:26 PM

I am sure no-one disputes the Fact that the Earth has an Equator because of its Magnetic Field?

When referring to Earth's equator, it is usually assumed that it is the geographic equator that is being referred to.  As others have posted, the definition of this equator is with regard to Earth's "spin" axis.  Just like other celestial bodies that have spin, but do not have magnetic fields, the Earth would still have a geographic equator even if it did not have a magnetic field.

There is also a "geomagnetic" equator, which is located with regard to the "magnetic" axis of the Earth.  However, because the spin axis and magnetic axis are not similarly located, the geographic and geomagnetic equators do not define the same locations on the Earth's surface.  (Keep in mind that the Earth has a very complex magnetic field and that to model it as a bar magnet positioned thru the magnetic axis is, at best, a very simplistic representation.)

I could only agree with your statement above if you stated "the Earth has a "geomagnetic" equator because of its magnetic field".

With or without its magnetic field, the Earth would still have the more commonly referred to "geographic" equator.



Quote

I said:

ANYTHING that Constitutes a Lack of or Change of the conditions seen at each Pole, between the Poles of a Permanent Magnet, is a Bloch Wall or more commonly known as an Equator!


I find this statement very confusing with regard to the discussions on this thread.  It seems that you want to redefine words that already have agreed upon and accepted definitions.  The above statement neither defines a "Bloch wall" or an "equator".

Just like the word "equator", "Bloch wall" has a specific definition.  Most everyone seems to be in agreement that there are domains within a magnet, and therefore, are seemingly in agreement with their being Bloch walls between those domains (as per the definition of "Bloch wall").  By definition, there are domains, and therefore Bloch walls, scattered throughout a magnet. Most certainly there are Bloch walls at the midpoint of a magnet, but no more so or less than the Bloch walls that exist throughout the entire magnet.

However, some here seem to advocate that there is a different sort of "Bloch wall" at the midpoint between the poles of a magnet that is somehow different from the accepted definition of "Bloch wall".

Your statement,
Quote
"ANYTHING that Constitutes a Lack of or Change of the conditions seen at each Pole, between the Poles of a Permanent Magnet, is a Bloch Wall or more commonly known as an Equator!"

besides providing incorrect definitions of rather specific words, seems to be more so in agreement with field lines being, for the most part, parallel to a bar magnet at the midpoint between the poles (as is generally accepted).

In a previous posting, you posted an image/drawing of a cube magnet with field lines leaving one pole and re-entering the magnet at its midsection, with field lines then re-emerging from that midsection and continuing onward to the opposite pole.  It is this configuration that I always thought the "Bloch wall at the midpoint of a magnet" supporters advocated.

Your "definition" above seems to be in disagreement with this "field in/field out at the midpoint of a magnet" scenario, as field lines dipping into and out of the midpoint would definitely "constitute a change".  Additionally, the individual field curls that would be assumed to be associated with this "field in/field out at the midpoint of a magnet" scenario would seemingly be more so similar to what is observed at the magnet's poles, which would also be in disagreement with your definition above. 

Various images you have posted seem to support, for the most part, the standard convention.  Some images presented (such as the cube magnet drawing discussed above) appear to support the "field in/field out at the midpoint of a magnet" proposition.

So, after many pages of debate, and reading your "definition" above, I must admit, I am no longer certain what it is you are advocating.

Is it your position that a definite change in the nature of the field of a magnet DOES occur at the midpoint between the poles of a magnet, wherein the field lines emerging from one pole re-enter (curl into) that midpoint and then re-emerge from (curl out of) that midpoint and continue onward to the opposing pole?

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 09:45:57 PM
Maybe we need some real data rather than simply speculating what may be happening.

@AC - You have done an Experiment and have HARD DATA! It appears that this is not enough for the naysayers here in this forum!

I wonder what the Zero Indication near the Central Point between the Poles is showing?

AC you have my respect as an adventurer in Science!

Well Done! Excellent Work!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 10:13:14 PM
I would say that as I look at AC's data and use his descriptions and try to visualize the situation it all looks pretty normal to me.  For example, if you slide a Hall sensor down the long side of a bar magnet, and the sensor is flat on the side of the magnet, you would expect to see zero flux recorded at the center of the magnet and increasing flux with opposite polarity as you go in either direction.  That's exactly what you see in "2)Hall face to side near."

You are claiming a lot of hollow victories Chris.  It's Bizarro.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 10:21:42 PM
I would say that as I look at AC's data and use his descriptions and try to visualize the situation it all looks pretty normal to me.  For example, if you slide a Hall sensor down the long side of a bar magnet, and the sensor is flat on the side of the magnet, you would expect to see zero flux recorded at the center of the magnet and increasing flux with opposite polarity as you go in either direction.  That's exactly what you see in "2)Hall face to side near."

You are claiming a lot of hollow victories Chris.  It's Bizarro.

MileHigh - No Victory or anything of the like claimed. AC has proven much more than Imaginary Experiments and a flawed Compass Experiment has proven however!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 10:28:12 PM
Quote
I wonder what the Zero Indication near the Central Point between the Poles is showing?

Take a look at the attached diagram and all of your questions are answered.

Sorry Chris, with your avoiding of answering of questions and your evident lack of experience and understanding, it's showing you up and putting your false claims in context for any people that might have been sitting on the fence.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 10:29:44 PM
@AC - Can you please run three more graphs?

1: Orthogonal to the Magnetic Axis from the North Pole Plane.
2: Parallel to the Bloch Wall but still Orthogonal to the Magnetic Axis. At the approximate centre point of the Poles.
3: Orthogonal to the Magnetic Axis from the South Pole Plane.

If you can run each experiment out to the same perimeter. 200mm or so should be enough.

Again, an Experiment with Hard Data, this will be an interesting result for all.

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 10:32:10 PM
Take a look at the attached diagram and all of your questions are answered.

Sorry Chris, with your avoiding of answering of questions and your evident lack of experience and understanding, it's showing you up and putting your false claims in context for any people that might have been sitting on the fence.

Milehigh - I am very sorry but your diagram and partial explanation is not anything like conclusive! Its simply an Assumption!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 10:33:06 PM
Milehigh - I am very sorry but your diagram and partial explanation is not anything like conclusive! Its simply an Assumption!

This deserves a LOL.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 10:46:08 PM
This deserves a LOL.

MileHigh - Broken Blue Lines are not showing what AC Clearly Graphed! AC's Graph is Linear through the regions from North to South - This FACT Alone clearly shows you do not understand what's going on!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 11:05:23 PM
Can you explain what is going on with those broken blue lines?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 11:07:51 PM
Can you explain what is going on with those broken blue lines?

MileHigh - Unfortunately this is YOUR Assumption. I have nothing to do with your assumptions!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 07, 2015, 11:09:05 PM
MileHigh - Unfortunately this is YOUR Assumption. I have nothing to do with your assumptions!

Whoops!  You need to find an "introduction to magnetism" web site.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 07, 2015, 11:17:06 PM
Whoops!  You need to find an "introduction to magnetism" web site.

Hahahaha - MileHigh Youre Funny  ;D
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 12:07:39 AM
@AC - Also can you please post the Length of the Magnet?

Thank You!

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 08, 2015, 12:25:04 AM
@Chris
Quote
1: Orthogonal to the Magnetic Axis to the Magnetic Axis from the North Pole Plane.2: Parallel to the Bloch Wall but still Orthogonal to the Magnetic Axis. At the approximate centre point of the Poles.3: Orthogonal to the Magnetic Axis from the South Pole Plane.


By " Orthogonal to the Magnetic Axis to the Magnetic Axis from the North Pole Plane" I assume you mean the hall sensor face is perpendicular/ortho to the N-S vertical axis moving along the north pole plane or across the North face of the magnet.


1)The hall sensor face is ortho to NS axis, NS axis vertical,  moving along North pole horizontal pole plane across the North pole face.
2)The hall sensor face is ortho to NS axis, the NS axis vertical , hall face pointing towards magnet side in center of magnet registers zero change, no picture because change is zero..
3)The hall sensor face is ortho to NS axis, NS axis vertical, moving along South pole horizontal pole plane across the South pole face.


The last plot was interesting, hall sensor face parallel with NS axis moving from 6" away towards the North pole face along the North pole plane then past it 6". The South polarity peaks about 1.5" away from the face then transitions to North polarity at the North face and once again transitions to a south polarity peaking 1.5" away.


It helps if you could describe the hall sensor face orientation in relation to the magnet NS axis or other descriptor and a specific start/end point along with the direction of travel. I should note that when I say hall sensor face parallel to NS axis I mean the sensor face is pointing along the same axis as the NS axis drawing an imaginary line through the sensor face.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 12:27:51 AM
@Chris

By " Orthogonal to the Magnetic Axis to the Magnetic Axis from the North Pole Plane" I assume you mean the hall sensor face is perpendicular/ortho to the N-S vertical axis moving along the north pole plane or across the North face of the magnet.


1)The hall sensor face is horizontal, NS axis vertical,  moving along North pole horizontal pole plane across the North pole face.
2)The hall sensor face is horizontal, the NS axis vertical , hall face pointing towards magnet side in center of magnet registers zero change, no picture because change is zero..
3)The hall sensor face is horizontal, NS axis vertical, moving along South pole horizontal pole plane across the South pole face.


The last plot was interesting, hall sensor face parallel with NS axis moving from 6" away towards the North pole face along the North pole plane then past it 6". The South polarity peaks about 1.5" away from the face then transitions to North polarity at the North face and once again transitions to a south polarity peaking 1.5" away.


It helps if you could describe the hall sensor face orientation in relation to the magnet NS axis or other descriptor and a specific start/end point along with the direction of travel.


AC


Hi AC,

Did I post my Picture n time? Sorry I thought about a Picture after I had already posted this request. Where the direction of detection is the same for all movements. Detection of the Hall Sensor Face is detecting in the direction of the Arrow.

Can you confirm the Picture and the experiment match?

Thanks AC!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 08, 2015, 12:40:29 AM
@Chris
Quote
Did I post my Picture n time? Sorry I thought about a Picture after I had already posted this request.Can you confirm the Picture and the experiment match?


Much better description, will take measurements.


AC

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 08, 2015, 12:52:51 AM
@Chris


Here are the graphs.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 08, 2015, 01:01:19 AM
@Chris


I'm glad you jumped in with some suggestions and I made some plots which actually surprised me a bit. I didn't realize how far out the polarity transitions from the North face north polarity to the smaller transition to a South polarity on these magnets along the plane of the pole.
As well as didn't expect the result with the hall sensor facing the side of the magnet at the center. I expected some very small deviation however it was zero from the side to 10" out.


Interesting.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 01:15:52 AM
@Chris


Here are the graphs.

Thanks AC!

Clearly graph 2 is showing a reading for a Magnetic Field that is Parallel to the Axis of the Magnetic Field but in reverse! It is also stronger than the Poles? How I wonder? 3.8 --> 4.1 - I am a bit surprised with the result too! Still these changes still prove the Equator is still different to the Poles!

I have to admit defeat here with a Small Magnet, AC has provided enough proof here for me.

Even though other experiments show results that still show a "Difference" from the Poles to the Equator, AC has provided enough proof to say that the Magnetic Field may not be showing these other results. This result is NOT shown in the Iron Filing Experiment or the Compass Experiment!

Even though, all should keep an open mind, no matter what!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 08, 2015, 01:48:44 AM
the output of the Hall effect sensor UGN3503UA  shows a dip in the magnetic field near the midpoint of a bar magnet.
Rotate the face of sensor 90deg and it will not.
If you move on a plane perpendicular to the bar and crossing the midpoint of the bar, you will be able to measure the field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 08, 2015, 02:08:30 AM
Rotate the face of sensor 90deg and it will not.
If you move on a plane that is perpendicular to the bar and crossing the midpoint of the bar, you will be able to measure the field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 02:17:03 AM
Thanks AC!

Clearly graph 2 is showing a reading for a Magnetic Field that is Parallel to the Axis of the Magnetic Field but in reverse! It is also stronger than the Poles? How I wonder? 3.8 --> 4.1 - I am a bit surprised with the result too! Still these changes still prove the Equator is still different to the Poles!

I have to admit defeat here with a Small Magnet, AC has provided enough proof here for me.

Even though other experiments show results that still show a "Difference" from the Poles to the Equator, AC has provided enough proof to say that the Magnetic Field may not be showing these other results. This result is NOT shown in the Iron Filing Experiment or the Compass Experiment!

Even though, all should keep an open mind, no matter what!

Kind Regards

  Chris

@AC - I don't want to burden you, but do you have say 10 ferrite magnets all the same size?

Thinking about the last result, Magnetic Field Strength 'H' over Distance Travelled, could, like we already predicted, obscure the result and be the reason we can not see what we are looking for.

Thus Science showing the "Long Solenoid" experiment not the "Short Solenoid" experiment!!!

A Keeper will obscure the Magnetic Field. So will very high Magnetic Field Strength!!! N42 Neo is possibly as high as 6000 Gauss depending on the size.

So, to be correct and be properly Scientific, I with-draw my previous statement of defeat because it is still not conclusive even though AC's experiment did show correct result!!!

Its just an obscured Result because of High Field Strength.

Kind Regards

  Chris
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 02:18:59 AM


NoBull - I think you have missed the last 15 or so posts. We have done this experiment already. My last post explains why we still have not got an conclusive result.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 08, 2015, 02:34:06 AM
I am posting a picture of aerogel as an analogy to what a magnetic field is like around a magnet.  Forget about the shape, that's not the issue.  The aerogel sort of looks like a cloud of varying density.  Even though the aerogel is of uniform density, with a bit of imagination it looks like it is a cloud of varying density.

You look at the picture and you can imagine the denser parts are like the stronger parts of a magnetic field around a hypothetical magnet that you can't see at the center.  The further you are away from the magnet, the less dense and more wispy the cloud gets, indicating a weaker magnetic field.  Far enough away and the field is so weak that you can't see it anymore, but it is still there.

And for the closed-loop spaghetti strands, they are all there in the sense that if you followed the direction of the magnetic field in the cloud, you would follow the closed loops.  There is an infinity of closed-loop paths in the cloud.

The main point that has been mentioned before, is that there are no "lines of flux to cut."  The "lines" only exist on paper diagrams to help us visualize what is going on.  Typically lines closer together indicate a stronger magnetic field and lines farther apart indicate a weaker magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 02:54:20 AM
@Chris


I'm glad you jumped in with some suggestions and I made some plots which actually surprised me a bit. I didn't realize how far out the polarity transitions from the North face north polarity to the smaller transition to a South polarity on these magnets along the plane of the pole.
As well as didn't expect the result with the hall sensor facing the side of the magnet at the center. I expected some very small deviation however it was zero from the side to 10" out.


Interesting.


AC

@AC - I too am glad you jumped in and also brought a fresh Mind to this debate!

Thanks for joining in!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 08, 2015, 04:29:37 AM
Very nicely worded but still you have NO Legs to stand on! Evidence again is not on your side! You have lost your Compass Race and been shot down, that Big Orange is still sitting beside you and you still refuse to prove it doesn't exist!

I have watched all of Dr. Lewin's lectures available online.  He is a brilliant physicist and teacher. Never once did I ever hear him mention a bloch wall at the equator or on a bar magnet.  So, when you say Chris that he backs you up you are not being genuine.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on January 08, 2015, 04:48:34 AM


@Chris


I'm glad you jumped in with some suggestions and I made some plots which actually surprised me a bit. I didn't realize how far out the polarity transitions from the North face north polarity to the smaller transition to a South polarity on these magnets along the plane of the pole.
As well as didn't expect the result with the hall sensor facing the side of the magnet at the center. I expected some very small deviation however it was zero from the side to 10" out.


Interesting.


AC

Hey AC

Back some years ago at Fizzx.com  now .org, we were discussing possibilities of the field being comprised of particles and the particles having a direction of flow, N to S or S to N.  And in part of the discussion was about how particles would flow out, as compared to how the would flow in. As in, if the particles were affected by inertia.  Say the particles were the tiniest kind. Pass by an atom, even through, and they traveled at a particular speed(very very fast), imagine ones that are exiting say the N face of the mag and not having such a curvature as to the ones being say pulled in by the S pole face.  There was more to it all. But what you guys are showing brought back memories of those times. ;D

One thing. Is it the same result with any magnet?  Only because I went through a terrible experience where the magnets I was working with were not evenly magnetized. Off center, different magnetic strength of the same batches, and possibly tighter field on one pole face and more of a spread on the other face. As if it was one of the faces that was concentrated and the other side, even the sides of the edges wer showing as much field as the face, more of a bloom than the other pole.  You have to buy many many magnets to get close to having matched sets. Electro magnets are much more consistent. If some out there are building devices with many magnets of the same type, the best efficiency of the whole would be to have matched sets.   Lets say someone had a nice idea for an all magnet motor, and were really looking for the smallest hint of self runners, then there is a possibility that just 1 mag of the bunch could be screwing things up, and might miss out on the gold. If some are serious about what you are building, then carefully choose and make matched sets. Especially when balance all around is critical.

Nice experiments guys. ;)

Mags
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on January 08, 2015, 05:06:24 AM
Hi All,

Here are some rudimentary tests I did with 4 cylinders with alternating poles made from disc magnets. These spin on a central shaft.

The measuring device relative to the field is what causes the appearance of a bloch wall. There really isn't a wall or loss of field though I like to think of it as a neutral plane where the two poles have equal force. The coil is picking up the equal fields which cancel.

This can also be tested with a long cylinder magnet and a smaller cylinder magnet. When you place the small cylinder magnet on the side of the long one with opposite polarity it will move to the center where the two fields are equal. If you try to slide the small cylinder up against the long cylinder you will feel the imbalance try to push it back to the center.

Hi Magluvin,

I've also experienced those same effects on magnets. Square magnets are more like round gaussian hills, also stressing magnets can push the field off center or degauss them over time. The ferrite magnets show it the fastest, larger magnets will take a while. Makes it fun trying to replicate a magnet motor.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 08, 2015, 06:24:58 AM

NoBull,   i tried that, but i can not confirm it  :o

the output of the Hall effect sensor UGN3503UA  shows a dip in the magnetic field near the midpoint of a bar magnet.
It shows what Tinman describes as a peanut shape field.

I think the field at the midpoint is spread out so much (like a sphere) in the midpoint causing this dip. Right?

The field polarity all along the magnet was the same, so starting left as north, it stays north all the way (with the dip in the middle) to right.

Or is my Hall sensor balancing itselve between the both poles?

Please if possible, try  this simple test yourselve.


Regards Itsu
Interesting Itsu

One thing is for sure, there IS more reserch to be done here. I have developed a test that will once and for all show exactly what shape the field around a magnet is. This test (if go's as planed) will be non deniable as far as results go. Once the parts have turned up, I will be straight onto it. And regardless of wether it prooves me right or wrong (which I've been many times before), I will post my test results via video , right here.

Brad
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 07:27:28 AM
I have watched all of Dr. Lewin's lectures available online.  He is a brilliant physicist and teacher. Never once did I ever hear him mention a bloch wall at the equator or on a bar magnet.  So, when you say Chris that he backs you up you are not being genuine.

Bill

Bill - I did not ever say what you have implied that I said! Please get your facts straight! I quoted Walter Lewin, I will do it again just in-case you did not read my post: "So the Magnetic Field is INSIDE the Solenoid"

Don't bend FACTS to suit yourself. This is what he said! If you can not hear his words then maybe hearing aids might be of value to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI

Minute 30:17

My original Post just in-case you want to go and check it: http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431515/#msg431515

Just for you Bill!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 08, 2015, 07:37:40 AM
You can't see the forest for the trees Tinman.  What does a compass do in real life?  It lines itself up with the Earth's magnetic field.
I can see far more than just a forrest MileHigh.
And no-a compas dose not always line up with the earths magnetic field. It is solely dependent on position of the compass and the strongest magnetic field of opposite polarity.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 08:04:15 AM
I have watched all of Dr. Lewin's lectures available online.  He is a brilliant physicist and teacher. Never once did I ever hear him mention a bloch wall at the equator or on a bar magnet.  So, when you say Chris that he backs you up you are not being genuine.

Bill

Bill,

I quote again, Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is really confined in the Solenoid, the Magnetic Field outside the Solenoid, as we discussed earlier, is almost Zero. There is only a Magnetic Field right Here, keep that in mind for what follows!"

Minute: 28:00

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI

Ok, just for some more, real, hard core giggles:

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 08:08:17 AM
@ALL - AC's Experiments are very good! But they are unfortunately un-conclusive. Not enough to Prove or disprove a final result.

All my experiments show that something is going on at the Bloch Wall.

Magnetic Field Lines DONT always diverge from Pole to Pole!

Again: I quote again, Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is really confined in the Solenoid, the Magnetic Field outside the Solenoid, as we discussed earlier, is almost Zero. There is only a Magnetic Field right Here, keep that in mind for what follows!"

Minute: 28:00

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Dog-One on January 08, 2015, 08:52:19 AM
Again: I quote again, Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is really confined in the Solenoid, the Magnetic Field outside the Solenoid, as we discussed earlier, is almost Zero. There is only a Magnetic Field right Here, keep that in mind for what follows!"

Yet, we can induce a current in another loop, with any shape surface you want, as long as that magnetic field passes through our surface.

Great video Chris!   That is without a doubt the best explanation of how turns ratios work and induction in general.  The demonstration at the end of this video is also priceless.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 08, 2015, 09:10:59 AM
Quote
All my experiments show that something is going on at the Bloch Wall.

Magnetic Field Lines DONT always diverge from Pole to Pole!

Again: I quote again, Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is really confined in the Solenoid, the Magnetic Field outside the Solenoid, as we discussed earlier, is almost Zero. There is only a Magnetic Field right Here, keep that in mind for what follows!"

Walter Lewin is not discussing Bloch walls in that quote.  The magnetic field outside the solenoid theoretically extends out to infinity, just like it does for a long straight current-carrying wire.  The amount of magnetic flux going through the core from south to north then returns outside the coil from north back to south but spread out over all space.  It's not rocket science.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 09:44:18 AM
Walter Lewin is not discussing Bloch walls in that quote.  The magnetic field outside the solenoid theoretically extends out to infinity, just like it does for a long straight current-carrying wire.  The amount of magnetic flux going through the core from south to north then returns outside the coil from north back to south but spread out over all space.  It's not rocket science.

MileHigh - Denial in the face of a World Class Physicist - I know who I believe and it surely is not you MileHigh.

Really, right now, I don't care about the Bloch Wall, I care that ALL your Evidence and Experiments to refute the Bloch Wall are proven false by a World Class Physicist!

Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is really confined in the Solenoid, the Magnetic Field outside the Solenoid, as we discussed earlier, is almost Zero. There is only a Magnetic Field right Here, keep that in mind for what follows!"

Lewin / MileHigh

Yep, answer is obvious!

EDIT: Apologies, saw the M and read the post, just sounded like a MarkE Post. Apologies! Have amended the Name.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 10:19:09 AM
Yet, we can induce a current in another loop, with any shape surface you want, as long as that magnetic field passes through our surface.

Great video Chris!   That is without a doubt the best explanation of how turns ratios work and induction in general.  The demonstration at the end of this video is also priceless.

Not a Problem DogOne! Glad you liked it!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 10:40:27 AM
I am posting a picture of aerogel as an analogy to what a magnetic field is like around a magnet.  Forget about the shape, that's not the issue.  The aerogel sort of looks like a cloud of varying density.  Even though the aerogel is of uniform density, with a bit of imagination it looks like it is a cloud of varying density.

You look at the picture and you can imagine the denser parts are like the stronger parts of a magnetic field around a hypothetical magnet that you can't see at the center.  The further you are away from the magnet, the less dense and more wispy the cloud gets, indicating a weaker magnetic field.  Far enough away and the field is so weak that you can't see it anymore, but it is still there.

And for the closed-loop spaghetti strands, they are all there in the sense that if you followed the direction of the magnetic field in the cloud, you would follow the closed loops.  There is an infinity of closed-loop paths in the cloud.

The main point that has been mentioned before, is that there are no "lines of flux to cut."  The "lines" only exist on paper diagrams to help us visualize what is going on.  Typically lines closer together indicate a stronger magnetic field and lines farther apart indicate a weaker magnetic field.

Ok, MileHigh - I am going to agree with SOME of what you have said here. I was going to save this for later on, but after my recent blow off I thought I should bring back some of my frustrations of the lack of Open Mindedness of some people!

After all, we are all supposed to be here to advance the cause, not squabble with each other! This is what we have done and its all we have done!

First, I believe it to be incomplete! But I will advance anyway.

Many years ago, I read something that stuck with me: "as is above so is below" - I cant remember where I read it. There is a movie also called this.

Where I believe you're right is the basic "Cloud" Idea.

Today, the Magnetic Field is considered to be made up of two parts, A and Phi. This is the A Vector Potential, and the Magnetic Field Phi. The A Vector Potential is considered to be an Electric Field.

Like I said, I believe this to be in-complete! I also believe it to be close! Ever wonder why we only get Aurora Borealis near the Poles? Earths Electric Field's repelling other Charged Particles flying in from the Sun? Looking familiar?

We know that the Earth has more than one Electric Field around it! The Van Allen Belts:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 10:54:44 AM
Ok, MileHigh - I am going to agree with SOME of what you have said here. I was going to save this for later on, but after my recent blow off I thought I should bring back some of my frustrations of the lack of Open Mindedness of some people!

After all, we are all supposed to be here to advance the cause, not squabble with each other! This is what we have done and its all we have done!

First, I believe it to be incomplete! But I will advance anyway.

Many years ago, I read something that stuck with me: "as is above so is below" - I cant remember where I read it. There is a movie also called this.

Where I believe you're right is the basic "Cloud" Idea.

Today, the Magnetic Field is considered to be made up of two parts, A and Phi. This is the A Vector Potential, and the Magnetic Field Phi. The A Vector Potential is considered to be an Electric Field.

Like I said, I believe this to be in-complete! I also believe it to be close! Ever wonder why we only get Aurora Borealis near the Poles? Earths Electric Field's repelling other Charged Particles flying in from the Sun? Looking familiar?

We know that the Earth has more than one Electric Field around it! The Van Allen Belts:

Not the same link but same content: Hermetic teachings

URL: http://treeofknowledgecoven.com/2012/07/01/as-above-so-below-as-within-so-without-as-the-universe-so-the-soul/

Kind Regards

  Chris

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 08, 2015, 11:53:06 AM
Today, the Magnetic Field is considered to be made up of two parts, A and Phi. This is the A Vector Potential, and the Magnetic Field Phi. The A Vector Potential is considered to be an Electric Field.

Like I said, I believe this to be in-complete!
Do you believe this to be incomplete because of the Aharonov–Bohm effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect) ?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 11:59:25 AM
I have watched all of Dr. Lewin's lectures available online.  He is a brilliant physicist and teacher. Never once did I ever hear him mention a bloch wall at the equator or on a bar magnet.  So, when you say Chris that he backs you up you are not being genuine.

Bill

Bill, just to add further to your comment, your miss-guided representation of the truth may be the result of your misunderstanding of context:

Oh my - MarkE - MORE BAD SCIENCE! Seriously!

Talk about flogging a dead horse! Get some Proof MarkE, stop talking rubbish with no substantial claims. ALL YOUR PROOF is WRONG!!!

Long Solenoid - Physics has already proven you wrong, nearly every science class for some 10 years does this experiment! What part of Experiment can you not understand? Experimental Proof is Hard Fact and yet you still refute it? Why I wonder?

Please go back to school!

Again:

Bill,

I quote again, Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is really confined in the Solenoid, the Magnetic Field outside the Solenoid, as we discussed earlier, is almost Zero. There is only a Magnetic Field right Here, keep that in mind for what follows!"

Minute: 28:00

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI

Ok, just for some more, real, hard core giggles:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 12:02:13 PM
Do you believe this to be incomplete because of the Aharonov–Bohm effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect) ?

NoBull- No disrespect intended, but for the moment I would rather not say. Certainly the Aharonov–Bohm effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect) is a very useful tool to examine facts!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 08, 2015, 12:32:42 PM
@MileHigh

You once wrote that attraction of a soft ferromagnetic blob can be simulated by an array of tiny pivoting magnets (compasses).

It is observed that in absence of external magnetic field a very soft blob does not manifest an external magnetic field outside of itself, yet in the presence of external MMF it makes more magnetic flux than the MMF would do alone.

Why does the blob respond linearly* to the magnitude of the MMF and not in a stepwise manner?
In other words: Why doesn't it get 100% polarized (magnetized) when subjected to very small magnitudes of MMF - what resists the total polarization (saturation) for small MMFs ?

Could you explain the behavior of this blob using your method of tiny pivoting magnets equivalence.



* Of course linear B(H) response does not happen close to saturation level.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 08, 2015, 12:44:01 PM
I can see far more than just a forrest MileHigh.
And no-a compas dose not always line up with the earths magnetic field. It is solely dependent on position of the compass and the strongest magnetic field of opposite polarity.

I think your description is not clear.  The compass lines up with the net magnetic field that exists wherever it is placed.  If the compass is near a strong magnet, it will line itself up with the net magnetic field that results from the vector addition of the Earth's magnetic field and the magnetic field of the strong magnet.  When we normally use a compass, it's away from strong magnets and large high-permeability metal structures so that the only thing the compass sees is the undisturbed Earth's magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 08, 2015, 12:58:56 PM
Chris:

Quote
MileHigh - Denial in the face of a World Class Physicist - I know who I believe and it surely is not you MileHigh.

Really, right now, I don't care about the Bloch Wall, I care that ALL your Evidence and Experiments to refute the Bloch Wall are proven false by a World Class Physicist!

Walter Lewin: "So the Magnetic Field is really confined in the Solenoid, the Magnetic Field outside the Solenoid, as we discussed earlier, is almost Zero. There is only a Magnetic Field right Here, keep that in mind for what follows!"

The problem is that Walter Lewin is agreeing with me but you are unable to see it.  When he says that the magnetic field is "almost zero" outside the coil, he is referring to the small amount of area just outside the dimensions of the physical coil that is normal to the axis of the coil.  That corresponds to his external wire loop.  If you increase that area to an infinite plane except for the circular disk corresponding to the tunnel of the coil, then the amount of flux goes from "almost zero" to the same amount of flux that is inside the coil.  i.e.; the amount of flux inside the coil is equal to the amount of returning flux outside the coil.

You really need to master the basics and not jump to conclusions.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 08, 2015, 01:14:55 PM
Chris:

Quote
Today, the Magnetic Field is considered to be made up of two parts, A and Phi. This is the A Vector Potential, and the Magnetic Field Phi. The A Vector Potential is considered to be an Electric Field.

Like I said, I believe this to be in-complete! I also believe it to be close! Ever wonder why we only get Aurora Borealis near the Poles? Earths Electric Field's repelling other Charged Particles flying in from the Sun? Looking familiar?

We know that the Earth has more than one Electric Field around it! The Van Allen Belts:

The A Vector Potential stuff is pseudoscience.  Even one of the luminaries from the QEG fiasco was supposedly winding a transformer to get power from the A Vector Potential but, surprise, nothing was ever heard about it past the first mention.

One more time you are "not even wrong."  The Northern and Southern Lights are due to Earth's magnetic field influencing the paths of incoming charged particles, not the Earth's supposed electric field.  Ditto for the Van Allen Belts.  They are a magnetic containment region for the incoming charged particles.  The Van Allen Belts are not an "electric field."

See how reading all that pseudoscience crap has corrupted your thinking and reasoning powers?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 09:15:38 PM
Chris:

The A Vector Potential stuff is pseudoscience.  Even one of the luminaries from the QEG fiasco was supposedly winding a transformer to get power from the A Vector Potential but, surprise, nothing was ever heard about it past the first mention.

One more time you are "not even wrong."  The Northern and Southern Lights are due to Earth's magnetic field influencing the paths of incoming charged particles, not the Earth's supposed electric field.  Ditto for the Van Allen Belts.  They are a magnetic containment region for the incoming charged particles.  The Van Allen Belts are not an "electric field."

See how reading all that pseudoscience crap has corrupted your thinking and reasoning powers?

Oh my - MileHigh!

In 1964, perhaps the greatest physicist of all time released possibly the most famous quantitate Physics Literature of all time: "The Feynman Lectures on Physics"

For your reference, Volume II. Mainly electromagnetism and matter, 15 The vector potential

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics

Richard Feynman devoted an entire Lecture, an entire Chapter on the A Vector Potential.

Milehigh / Richard Feynman - I know who I believe!!!

MileHigh you are again proven wrong! I will even attach the actual chapter, just for you MileHigh:

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 09:18:54 PM
Chris:

The problem is that Walter Lewin is agreeing with me but you are unable to see it.  When he says that the magnetic field is "almost zero" outside the coil, he is referring to the small amount of area just outside the dimensions of the physical coil that is normal to the axis of the coil.  That corresponds to his external wire loop.  If you increase that area to an infinite plane except for the circular disk corresponding to the tunnel of the coil, then the amount of flux goes from "almost zero" to the same amount of flux that is inside the coil.  i.e.; the amount of flux inside the coil is equal to the amount of returning flux outside the coil.

You really need to master the basics and not jump to conclusions.

You just keep kidding yourself MileHigh!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 10:22:18 PM
So,, am I understanding this correctly.

You are using this

from 15-4 B verses A

and then actually looking for this in real life??

Not that you are looking for the end products of a mathematical formula but you are looking for what the make believe parts of the formula would be in real life.

Not to mention that those formulas are a way to avoid what??? look up there I quoted it.

Walter and Richard followed the excepted understanding of things,, not because they HAD to but because they came to the same conclusions.  Here you are trying to show that they were not in agreement with what they believed to be true,,  and what that is does not fit with what you have been saying.

If you are trying to describe some intimate information of the magnetic field itself, then I think you should stop calling what you are talking about a "Bloch Wall".  A Block Wall is NOT the field and it seems that you are trying to discuss the field itself,, aka an intimate knowledge of the field and a method to discover it.

Webby1 - I am not looking for ANYTHING but truth!

I have proved twice that you believers are believing in "Conventional Science" that is today proven INCOMPLETE!

YOU PEOPLE are all here searching, what is it that you're ACTUALLY searching for, answers or an argument. It seems the later!

FORGET THE BLOCH WALL for a while! Because if you ACTUALLY read my posts I have not even been talking about this in the last 40 odd posts!

You people are distorted truth seekers, not willing to accept "What if" - get over your god like beliefs!

Then you may get somewhere.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 10:32:40 PM
So,, am I understanding this correctly.

You are using this

from 15-4 B verses A

and then actually looking for this in real life??

Not that you are looking for the end products of a mathematical formula but you are looking for what the make believe parts of the formula would be in real life.

Not to mention that those formulas are a way to avoid what??? look up there I quoted it.

Walter and Richard followed the excepted understanding of things,, not because they HAD to but because they came to the same conclusions.  Here you are trying to show that they were not in agreement with what they believed to be true,,  and what that is does not fit with what you have been saying.

If you are trying to describe some intimate information of the magnetic field itself, then I think you should stop calling what you are talking about a "Bloch Wall".  A Block Wall is NOT the field and it seems that you are trying to discuss the field itself,, aka an intimate knowledge of the field and a method to discover it.

Webby1

Walter Lewin, at MIT did 801, 802 and 803 - I don't know if he did any more.

Count how many times Walter Lewin used the Word "Intuitive"

Definition:

adjective 
1. perceiving directly by intuition without rational thought, as a person or the mind.

2. perceived by, resulting from, or involving intuition:
"intuitive knowledge."

3. having or possessing intuition:
"an intuitive person."

4. capable of being perceived or known by intuition.

Can anyone here be "Intuitive" except Tinman and AC?

I have proven that your concepts on the Magnetic Field are Incomplete! Simply because you believe, blindly, that the Magnetic Field is as Science drew it over 100 Years ago with no further Home Work!!!

Do YOUR Home Work! Assume Nothing! Question Everything!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 10:34:21 PM
Walter and Richard followed the excepted understanding of things,, not because they HAD to but because they came to the same conclusions.  Here you are trying to show that they were not in agreement with what they believed to be true,,  and what that is does not fit with what you have been saying.

This is a TOTAL Assumption on Your Part!!! See what I am saying!

Just to show how wrong you are:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 10:47:45 PM
You  ASS-u-me you are correct, but  you are wrong about me.

I am glad! See the above Video link! It shows once again why people need to stay open minded!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 10:50:41 PM
Now go see what I suggested.

Please be more Specific on what you suggested!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 11:01:46 PM
Not rue,, you need to do YOUR homework.

I did NOT get to my understanding via the standard educational system,, so again you are false.

You  ASS-u-me you are correct, but  you are wrong about me.

Now go see what I suggested.

Ok, a little cryptic, I get it, Sorry for my bluntness!

Apologies, very smart way to do it! Nice!

  Chris


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 08, 2015, 11:19:39 PM
Reading over all of what you have to say and trying to interpret the information it seems to me that you are NOT talking about a Bloch Wall,, but rather some UN-observed workings of the magnetic field,, some kind of insight into the nature of the field itself and not what we see just from the outside.

I alluded to the local area field effect not being the field itself but an area of effect that other "things" have a reaction to,, this does not mean that what we see is the field but only the local area field effect.

So,, if you are talking about a method to measure a non-observed interaction,, that can lead to a better understanding, and that is a good thing.

So I suggested that you stop calling it a Bloch Wall because a Bloch Wall is NOT the field BUT it is a known, observed and defined interaction.


@Webby1 - I hear you and agree. Like I said, Conventional Magnetic Field Lines all drawn in closed loops is an incomplete picture! This does not hold true all the time! In-fact universally it doesn't hold true, just here on Earth with strong Magnetic Fields made on the bench.

Magnetic says: "Magnetic Field Lines are always on enclosure on themselves" - We have proven this to be inconsistent.

Experiment:

Take a small flat magnet.
Put 2 small nails on one face.
Try to push each nail in toward each other!

Result:
Each Nail will repel each other - why?

Like Fields repel, opposite Fields attract? This is not the full answer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4sOR66VIpk

Many people here on ou.com are not willing to look for the Other possibilities! If people want to move forward then Doors need to be open!

Kind Regards

  Chris

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 09, 2015, 01:27:16 AM
The A Vector Potential stuff is pseudoscience.
How do you propose to explain the Aharonov–Bohm effect without the A vector potential, then?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 09, 2015, 01:30:53 AM
Experiment:
Take a small flat magnet.
Put 2 small nails on one face.
Try to push each nail in toward each other!
Result:
Each Nail will repel each other - why?

Like Fields repel, opposite Fields attract?
You are confusing the force of attraction with magnetic field (flux density, a.k.a. "B")
B is not responsible for the nail attraction force - its gradient is.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 09, 2015, 01:53:30 AM
@Chris


I always liked Walter Lewins video on non-intuitive, non-conservative fields. It is a peculiar thing that the crowd always refers to the most successful people as creative, intuitive and open minded. Yet we see so many people overly preoccupied with conformity, normalcy and the pursuit of mediocrity. It is strange that the people we admire could never be accused of such things.


You know I have haunted these forums for a while and my reasons were mostly academic relating to psychology. The fact that we may create our own walls which confine our thought to those of the crowd mentality. The crowd who watch others succeed then try to drag them down to their level of thinking. The best book I ever read was by Gustav Le Bon, The crowd a study of the popular mind... you should read it if you have a chance as it will explain many things.


Let those running in circles do so, let them eat cake, because the chance that they may help you on your journey is very small. There is no easy way in fact it is very hard because there is always that little voice in the back of our mind telling us to conform. I will tell you what, we will have a private chat and I will tell you what the magnetic field is, not what it does or appears to be or do but what it is fundamentally. It is amazing that something so simple such as the field could cause so much confusion and fear. I mean when I ask people what it is I see fear in their eyes which is unfortunate. We should never be afraid of what we do not know, we should embrace it because the unknown is our future isn't it?.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 09, 2015, 03:06:47 AM
@Chris


I always liked Walter Lewins video on non-intuitive, non-conservative fields. It is a peculiar thing that the crowd always refers to the most successful people as creative, intuitive and open minded. Yet we see so many people overly preoccupied with conformity, normalcy and the pursuit of mediocrity. It is strange that the people we admire could never be accused of such things.


You know I have haunted these forums for a while and my reasons were mostly academic relating to psychology. The fact that we may create our own walls which confine our thought to those of the crowd mentality. The crowd who watch others succeed then try to drag them down to their level of thinking. The best book I ever read was by Gustav Le Bon, The crowd a study of the popular mind... you should read it if you have a chance as it will explain many things.


Let those running in circles do so, let them eat cake, because the chance that they may help you on your journey is very small. There is no easy way in fact it is very hard because there is always that little voice in the back of our mind telling us to conform. I will tell you what, we will have a private chat and I will tell you what the magnetic field is, not what it does or appears to be or do but what it is fundamentally. It is amazing that something so simple such as the field could cause so much confusion and fear. I mean when I ask people what it is I see fear in their eyes which is unfortunate. We should never be afraid of what we do not know, we should embrace it because the unknown is our future isn't it?.


AC
I find it quite ironic that anyone who espouses the virtues of an open mind supports rejecting reliable evidence in favor of BS that has been utterly and completely refuted.  If EMJ's got Bloch walls then where are his unaligned domains?  "Unaligned domains? We ain't got no unaligned domains. We don't need no unaligned domains. I don't have to show you any stinkin' unaligned domains!".   We see the same response for the supposed curl.  EMJ points to one of Professor Lewin's lectures for support.  But the lecture rather than supporting EMJ's claims includes three demonstations that each refute his claims.  I find it remarkable that anyone can consider that when evidence incontrovertibly refutes a claim, but the claimant adheres to their claim that the first person considers the claimant open minded.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 09, 2015, 03:46:54 AM
You are confusing the force of attraction with magnetic field (flux density, a.k.a. "B")
B is not responsible for the nail attraction force - its gradient is.

NoBull, You get the jist of the experiment though? Attraction/Repulsion - Pole Polarity vs Polarity.

Its gradient is an obvious thing, many know this already.

Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2015, 03:50:20 AM
Bill - I did not ever say what you have implied that I said! Please get your facts straight! I quoted Walter Lewin, I will do it again just in-case you did not read my post: "So the Magnetic Field is INSIDE the Solenoid"

Don't bend FACTS to suit yourself. This is what he said! If you can not hear his words then maybe hearing aids might be of value to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUUMCT7FjaI)

Minute 30:17

My original Post just in-case you want to go and check it: http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431515/#msg431515 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431515/#msg431515)

Just for you Bill!

What I implied?  What a joke.  You have stated that "modern physics" (whatever that means to you) refutes what MileHigh and MarkE are saying...then you mention Walter Lewin as an example.  So it was YOU that expressed/implied that Dr. Lewin backed up your position.

I am sorry if you got caught in your little attempt to deceive.  Possibly you figured that no one here has heard of Dr. Lewin, and that you could get away with it.

Well, it didn't work out so well for you now did it?

Busted.

Carry on,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 09, 2015, 03:51:11 AM
NoBull:

I looked at your first question but is was not clear to me so hard to respond.  For the A Vector stuff and the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the effect is a quantum effect affecting the phase shift when doing a double-slit electron beam experiment.  I am no expert on quantum mechanics but I don't see that effect applying to harnessing power from some kind of transformer configuration.  I am pretty sure that is an invalid connection being made.  What I call the "free energy cottage industry" is rife with that kind of pitch-man business.

Then there is simple logic.  If you take a few physics courses and electronics courses, you go through the loop a few times taking courses covering electronics and that of course includes transformers.  Is it possible that getting power via the "A Vector Potential" would not already be known and studied and possibly applied?  It's just not possible.  And a "clamp-on ammeter guy" making a YouTube clip is not going to convince me either.

I did the double-slit experiment in junior college.  We did a physics lab with a HeNe laser and a 35 mm slide where someone took a picture of two fluorescent tubes to make the double-slit on the slide.  You aimed the laser at the slit and measured all the distances and crunched the numbers to calculate the wavelength of the laser.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 09, 2015, 03:51:26 AM
@Chris


I always liked Walter Lewins video on non-intuitive, non-conservative fields. It is a peculiar thing that the crowd always refers to the most successful people as creative, intuitive and open minded. Yet we see so many people overly preoccupied with conformity, normalcy and the pursuit of mediocrity. It is strange that the people we admire could never be accused of such things.


You know I have haunted these forums for a while and my reasons were mostly academic relating to psychology. The fact that we may create our own walls which confine our thought to those of the crowd mentality. The crowd who watch others succeed then try to drag them down to their level of thinking. The best book I ever read was by Gustav Le Bon, The crowd a study of the popular mind... you should read it if you have a chance as it will explain many things.


Let those running in circles do so, let them eat cake, because the chance that they may help you on your journey is very small. There is no easy way in fact it is very hard because there is always that little voice in the back of our mind telling us to conform. I will tell you what, we will have a private chat and I will tell you what the magnetic field is, not what it does or appears to be or do but what it is fundamentally. It is amazing that something so simple such as the field could cause so much confusion and fear. I mean when I ask people what it is I see fear in their eyes which is unfortunate. We should never be afraid of what we do not know, we should embrace it because the unknown is our future isn't it?.


AC
Dont hide your beliefs in a privat chat AC-spit it out here.
It is good to see you have had a few beers less in this thread.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 09, 2015, 03:53:11 AM
@Chris


I always liked Walter Lewins video on non-intuitive, non-conservative fields. It is a peculiar thing that the crowd always refers to the most successful people as creative, intuitive and open minded. Yet we see so many people overly preoccupied with conformity, normalcy and the pursuit of mediocrity. It is strange that the people we admire could never be accused of such things.


You know I have haunted these forums for a while and my reasons were mostly academic relating to psychology. The fact that we may create our own walls which confine our thought to those of the crowd mentality. The crowd who watch others succeed then try to drag them down to their level of thinking. The best book I ever read was by Gustav Le Bon, The crowd a study of the popular mind... you should read it if you have a chance as it will explain many things.


Let those running in circles do so, let them eat cake, because the chance that they may help you on your journey is very small. There is no easy way in fact it is very hard because there is always that little voice in the back of our mind telling us to conform. I will tell you what, we will have a private chat and I will tell you what the magnetic field is, not what it does or appears to be or do but what it is fundamentally. It is amazing that something so simple such as the field could cause so much confusion and fear. I mean when I ask people what it is I see fear in their eyes which is unfortunate. We should never be afraid of what we do not know, we should embrace it because the unknown is our future isn't it?.


AC

AC - Again, your philosophy is very admirable! Your common-sense approach is also as admirable.

Intuition may not settle debate, facts may not settle debate, but it certainly makes things work when one is on the bench working on something new!

Let those running in circles do so, let them eat cake, because the chance that they may help you on your journey is very small.

You are right! Its time to leave for a journey to the future and leave those stuck in the past there!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 09, 2015, 04:00:36 AM
What I implied?  What a joke.  You have stated that "modern physics" (whatever that means to you) refutes what MileHigh and MarkE are saying...then you mention Walter Lewin as an example.  So it was YOU that expressed/implied that Dr. Lewin backed up your position.

I am sorry if you got caught in your little attempt to deceive.  Possibly you figured that no one here has heard of Dr. Lewin, and that you could get away with it.

Well, it didn't work out so well for you now did it?

Busted.

Carry on,

Bill

Bill - You just keep believing what you want! Anyone and everyone can go back and read the posts!

It is you that has Lied and Implied. Busted!

I think, you think, you're quite smart, you're not! You've become a Fool, just like MarkE, your words and actions have proven that!

Have a nice day ;O)

   Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2015, 04:11:21 AM
Bill - You just keep believing what you want! Anyone and everyone can go back and read the posts!

It is you that has Lied and Implied. Busted!

I think, you think, you're quite smart, you're not! You've become a Fool, just like MarkE, your words and actions have proven that!

Have a nice day ;O)

   Chris

You are just unhappy that good old Dr. Lewin refutes what you are trying to say here.  Is he a fool then?  He was your example of "Modern Physics" right?  He refuted you so, I am a fool, MarkE is a fool,  you seem to be surrounded by fools then.

Try looking in the mirror.  You just might learn something.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 09, 2015, 04:12:37 AM
Chris:

There is a backdrop to your narrative.  Everybody on the site knows that some people on here really know their stuff.  MarkE is one of them.  There are some very experienced and knowledgeable people around here.  Some of them are in the stratosphere.

Far be it from me to ask anyone to do an experiment, but how about you do an experiment that you think demonstrates something new?  The rhetoric is dysfunctional at this point so how about an experiment instead?

At this point for me most of your links now are to legit sources and you are blindly thinking that they are backing up your arguments when in fact hey are refuting your arguments.  You need to start eating Spice.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 09, 2015, 04:29:56 AM
Chris:

There is a backdrop to your narrative.  Everybody on the site knows that some people on here really know their stuff.  MarkE is one of them.  There are some very experienced and knowledgeable people around here.  Some of them are in the stratosphere.

Far be it from me to ask anyone to do an experiment, but how about you do an experiment that you think demonstrates something new?  The rhetoric is dysfunctional at this point so how about an experiment instead?

At this point for me most of your links now are to legit sources and you are blindly thinking that they are backing up your arguments when in fact hey are refuting your arguments.  You need to start eating Spice.

MileHigh

MileHigh - Just like youre Pshudo Science A Vector Potential? Keep it up!

Just so others can see what Piffle you talk:

URL: http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431878/#msg431878
 
Keep up the Piffle or you wont get paid!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 09, 2015, 04:49:15 AM
Yeah back to the bozo talk.

Je Suis Charlie.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 09, 2015, 04:51:37 AM
@Mark
I find it quite ironic that anyone who espouses the virtues of an open mind supports rejecting reliable evidence in favor of BS that has been utterly and completely refuted.  If EMJ's got Bloch walls then where are his unaligned domains?  "Unaligned domains? We ain't got no unaligned domains. We don't need no unaligned domains. I don't have to show you any stinkin' unaligned domains!".   We see the same response for the supposed curl.  EMJ points to one of Professor Lewin's lectures for support.  But the lecture rather than supporting EMJ's claims includes three demonstations that each refute his claims.  I find it remarkable that anyone can consider that when evidence incontrovertibly refutes a claim, but the claimant adheres to their claim that the first person considers the claimant open minded.


So really what you seem to be saying is that Chris is not open minded because he will not believe what you do, is that it?. To be honest I get it that people think I'm picking sides but I don't believe a word that anyone here has to say completely. I understand you may take the norm as gospel your religion logic but to think I must in some way be compelled to believe your flavor of logic and reality is just inconsiderate in my opinion.


So yes you have jumped to conclusions which are in no way based in reality if you think I believe anything said here by anyone. I am an individual, a responsible adult, and I would think I could decide the matter for myself. Now let's ask the most relevant question I can think of concerning the topic of debate. Do you know what a magnetic field is fundamentally, not what you think it normally does but what it is?. In which case I would presume you have no idea and no idea where to even begin, why do you think that is?. I mean logically speaking, logic should just roll one concept into the next and everything should make perfect sense. However your hooped aren't you, I mean I think you probably have nothing in regards to what the Primary fields are, those peculiar fields which dictate the action of everything in the known universe.


So do not presume to know what I think nor what I believe. I like to encourage creative thoughts so I might be more creative and when someone thinks something unexpected I would hope I might learn something from them one way or another. Running in circles making no progress is just not my thing Mark I need constructive feedback as I think we all do.


Just ask yourself the question, why do I not understand how things work on the most fundamental level, why does nothing make sense and I do not even know where to begin?. You see a foundation is built from the ground up not vice versa and you are arguing simple phenomena which always occur after the fact which have no real foundation.


I mean I agree, I find it ironic as well.


AC







Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 09, 2015, 05:13:40 AM
@Mark
I find it quite ironic that anyone who espouses the virtues of an open mind supports rejecting reliable evidence in favor of BS that has been utterly and completely refuted.  If EMJ's got Bloch walls then where are his unaligned domains?  "Unaligned domains? We ain't got no unaligned domains. We don't need no unaligned domains. I don't have to show you any stinkin' unaligned domains!".   We see the same response for the supposed curl.  EMJ points to one of Professor Lewin's lectures for support.  But the lecture rather than supporting EMJ's claims includes three demonstations that each refute his claims.  I find it remarkable that anyone can consider that when evidence incontrovertibly refutes a claim, but the claimant adheres to their claim that the first person considers the claimant open minded.


So really what you seem to be saying is that Chris is not open minded because he will not believe what you do, is that it?.
I am saying tht Chris is closed minded because he rejects reliable, incontrovertible evidence that refutes his claims.  Often it is evidence he himself has cited.
Quote
To be honest I get it that people think I'm picking sides but I don't believe a word that anyone here has to say completely.
My comment had nothing to do with "sides".  It had to do with the idea that one would praise another for being open minded when the subject of their praise demonstrates an intractable set of fixed ideas to which no reliable evidence brings them enlightenment.
Quote
I understand you may take the norm as gospel your religion logic but to think I must in some way be compelled to believe your flavor of logic and reality is just inconsiderate in my opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  Here you assert that I am following a "religion logic".  Do you understand the difference between religion and science?  The answer is one espouses a set of beliefs that must be accepted independent of evidence for or against those beliefs.  The other insists that what we believe must come from reliable evidence.  It is no small irony that you heap praise upon EMJ for holding onto his fixed beliefs despite the reliable evidence that destroys those beliefs while asserting that it is I who use "religion logic".
Quote


So yes you have jumped to conclusions which are in no way based in reality if you think I believe anything said here by anyone.
Again, you heaped praise for an alleged "open minded" behavior when facts demonstrate that behavior to be anything but open minded.
Quote
I am an individual, a responsible adult, and I would think I could decide the matter for myself.
You are free to express opinions as others are free to express their objections.
Quote
Now let's ask the most relevant question I can think of concerning the topic of debate. Do you know what a magnetic field is fundamentally, not what you think it normally does but what it is?.
I am afraid any answer to that belongs to the philosphers.  We mere mortals are limited to observing how things behave and developing ideas that hopefully accurately predict how things will behave under given circumstances.  The great question of absolute whats or fundamental whys may never be answered.
Quote
In which case I would presume you have no idea and no idea where to even begin, why do you think that is?. I mean logically speaking, logic should just roll one concept into the next and everything should make perfect sense.
Absolute declarations of how things are tend to come from religious zealots.  Why should you expect such things from people such as myself who profess to engage in science?
Quote
However your hooped aren't you, I mean I think you probably have nothing in regards to what the Primary fields are, those peculiar fields which dictate the action of everything in the known universe.
That is a nice and irrelevant red herring.
Quote


So do not presume to know what I think nor what I believe.
I addresssed your statements as you made them.  Feel free to clarify if you feel misquoted or misinterpreted.
Quote
I like to encourage creative thoughts so I might be more creative and when someone thinks something unexpected I would hope I might learn something from them one way or another.
Does not learning rely on interpreting reliable evidence?  If learning occurs without relying on reliable evidence, then what else can serve as an adequate substitute?
Quote
Running in circles making no progress is just not my thing Mark I need constructive feedback as I think we all do.
Funny, because I view the comment that I made as quite constructive.
Quote


Just ask yourself the question, why do I not understand how things work on the most fundamental level, why does nothing make sense and I do not even know where to begin?.
But we do know where to begin.  Western science got that part figured out hundreds of years ago with the development of the Scientific Method.  The journey may have no end, but the Scientific Method is the road forward.
Quote
You see a foundation is built from the ground up not vice versa and you are arguing simple phenomena which always occur after the fact which have no real foundation.
You have just chained a set of declarations together.  Anytime you like feel free to support any one of them with facts.
Quote


I mean I agree, I find it ironic as well.


AC
Well, then you can commit yourself to do better in the future.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 09, 2015, 07:03:23 AM
Up until now, I have seen no evidence that supports a looped field. I have seen far more that supports my figure 8/peanut shaped field. So far I have seen the results of one test here, and done by some one that is pretty handy with electronic equipment. This some one also said before his test, that I was not seeing what others were trying to show me-the looped field. After his test-with a hall sensor as suggested many times by the big guns here-turns out the field was shaped like a peanut-whats the chances of that.
But we know the onslaught of why the test failed to show correct results is just around the corner. This is when the big guns get to explain why the test they recomended didnt show a looped field from one end to the other.

This thread is a hoot
TK-where you at ?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 09, 2015, 07:38:49 AM
Tinman:

Do you agree with the magnetic field around a wire as shown in the attached picture?

If you do then look at the second picture with a coil.  The coil is just a straight wire bent into a shape.  Just do the right-hand-rule visualization of the magnetic field generated for each loop and combine it with the vector addition for each loop and you should see how it all comes together.  The field around the coil comes directly from the field around a straight wire.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 09, 2015, 08:01:22 AM
Quote
After his test-with a hall sensor as suggested many times by the big guns here-turns out the field was shaped like a peanut-whats the chances of that.

No way, those tests were inconclusive.

What you would have to do with a Hall sensor would be to find the actual direction of the magnetic field around the magnet.  Let's say to keep it simple you place the magnet on your bench table and just do tests at a series of points on the surface of the table located around the magnet.  At every position for the Hall sensor, you would have to rotate the sensor around two axes (pitch and yaw, see graphic) and find the position where the magnetic field is the strongest.  If your setup is nice and symmetrical you will see that the magnetic field only varies on the yaw axis as you go around the magnet.  The angle that is normal to the surface of the Hall sensor is the direction of the magnetic field.

Do that and you will get the standard pattern for a magnetic field outside a coil or a bar magnet.

Then just put the Hall sensor in the air above the magnet and repeat the process and you will be able to see where the magnetic field is pointed anywhere above the magnet.

I saw how AC's Hall sensor software gives him a gain function for so I am assuming that this test is quite feasible.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 09, 2015, 08:41:25 AM
Up until now, I have seen no evidence that supports a looped field. I have seen far more that supports my figure 8/peanut shaped field. So far I have seen the results of one test here, and done by some one that is pretty handy with electronic equipment. This some one also said before his test, that I was not seeing what others were trying to show me-the looped field. After his test-with a hall sensor as suggested many times by the big guns here-turns out the field was shaped like a peanut-whats the chances of that.
But we know the onslaught of why the test failed to show correct results is just around the corner. This is when the big guns get to explain why the test they recomended didnt show a looped field from one end to the other.

This thread is a hoot
TK-where you at ?
Tinman you never answered me whether you think this representation is fair:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 09, 2015, 11:10:55 AM
Here is an experiment that anyone interested in this topic can perform at home for about $5.00.

Parts required:  Allegro Microsystems linear Hall effect sensor A1324LUA-T  http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/A1324LUA-T/620-1432-ND/2728144
5V bench power supply or
DIY 5V supply:
  9V battery
  Battery clip
  LM78L05
  10uF input and output capacitors
.1uF capacitor for the A1324, solder directly across pin 1 and 2.
fine lead wire 24AWG or smaller
heat shrink

DMM

Bar magnet, or stack of cylindrical magnets. 

Solder a 12" power lead to the A1324 pin 1.  Cover the exposed metal with heat shrink tubing.
Solder a 12" power return lead to pin 2.  Cover the exposed metal with heat shrink tubing.

Solder a 12" signal lead to the A1324 pin 3.    Cover the exposed metal with heat shrink tubing.
Solder a 12" signal return lead to pin 2.  Cover the exposed metal with heat shrink tubing.

Twist the power and power return leads together with at least two twists per inch.

Twist the signal and signal return leads together with at least two twists per inch.

Take the 16 measurements shown in the attached drawing.  Compare your results with those in the drawing.  Take additional measurements along the magnet as desired.

For added fun make the magnet longer by stacking additional magnets together.  What do these results say about flux supposedly returning to the middle of the magnet?  What do they say about the idea that near the middle of the magnet domains change direction?


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 09, 2015, 11:29:51 AM
After his test-with a hall sensor as suggested many times by the big guns here-turns out the field was shaped like a peanut-whats the chances of that.
The chance is 1:3.

This is because there are 3 common ways of scanning the magnetic field of a cylindrical bar magnet with a single Hall sensor.

1) Scanning parallell to the magnet's major symmetry axis (BX)
2) Scanning perpendicular to the magnet's major symmetry axis (BY)
3) Scanning perpendicular to the magnetic field (BB)

Only the method #3 yields the standard shape (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/dlattach/attach/145982/) of the BB field around the magnet.
Using method #1 yields the peanut shape.

Scanning with the sensor oriented in a constant orientation to the magnet is easy in methods #1 and #2.
But keeping the sensor aligned with the direction of the magnetic field requires more effort in method #3.

MileHigh vividly describes how to do this:
At every position for the Hall sensor, you would have to rotate the sensor around two axes (pitch and yaw, see graphic) and find the position where the magnetic field is the strongest.  If your setup is nice and symmetrical you will see that the magnetic field only varies on the yaw axis as you go around the magnet.  The angle that is normal to the surface of the Hall sensor is the direction of the magnetic field.

Do that and you will get the standard pattern for a magnetic field outside a coil or a bar magnet.

...and using an attraction of a small soft ferromagnetic object to scan the space surrounding a bar magnet, maps out the gradient of its field (not its density!). 
Such mapping can also be done in these 3 directions, as with the Hall sensor, yielding 3 additional methods of measuring the gradient of field.

So in total, we can have 6 common ways of scanning the field of the bar magnet, each showing a different shape.
Most people don't even distinguish between these different methods of mapping out the field thus it is no wonder this thread is such a "hoot".

This thread is a hoot
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 09, 2015, 11:43:19 AM
I looked at your first question but is was not clear to me so hard to respond.
Then ask me some questions that will clear up for you the issue of the opposing/restoring force on the little pivoting magnets (domains).

For the A Vector stuff and the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the effect is a quantum effect affecting the phase shift when doing a double-slit electron beam experiment.  I am no expert on quantum mechanics but I don't see that effect applying to harnessing power from some kind of transformer configuration. 
I was not referring to harnessing power but to the reality of the "A vector stuff".
In other words, my point was that the "A vector stuff" is real because it produces measurable effects.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 09, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
OK-one very simple question for all those that think they know all about magnets and magnetism
Why is the north attracted to south but repelled by another north.(and im using north/south as taught in school)-->And dont say the discrete particle theory,as thats absolute crap,and never proven to be fact--just another quantum theory.

Physics dosnt have positive and negative,nor dose it have north and south-->it has CW and CCW.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 09, 2015, 12:53:58 PM
OK-one very simple question for all those that think they know all about magnets and magnetism
Why is the north attracted to south but repelled by another north.(and im using north/south as taught in school)-->And dont say the discrete particle theory,as thats absolute crap,and never proven to be fact--just another quantum theory.

Physics dosnt have positive and negative,nor dose it have north and south-->it has CW and CCW.
Two like poles repel for the same reason that two opposite poles attract:  The field seeks its lowest energy state.  Separating a pair of poles is analagous to pulling apart the two ends of an extension spring.  This is why all manner of magnetic devices work by reducing the magnetic path length from one pole to the other:  that reduces the energy.  Bringing two like poles together is analagous to pulling on two extension springs each anchored to an opposite wall as the other.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 09, 2015, 01:14:27 PM
Tinman:

Do you agree with the magnetic field around a wire as shown in the attached picture?

If you do then look at the second picture with a coil.  The coil is just a straight wire bent into a shape.  Just do the right-hand-rule visualization of the magnetic field generated for each loop and combine it with the vector addition for each loop and you should see how it all comes together.  The field around the coil comes directly from the field around a straight wire.

MileHigh
MileHigh
I do indeed agree MH,but you have more than one loop in an electromagnet. Now,what dose the magnetic field look like around two wires close together with the current flowing in the same direction-->see pic below-what shape is the magnetic field MH?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 09, 2015, 01:39:40 PM
Tinman:

Do you agree with the magnetic field around a wire as shown in the attached picture?

If you do then look at the second picture with a coil.  The coil is just a straight wire bent into a shape.  Just do the right-hand-rule visualization of the magnetic field generated for each loop and combine it with the vector addition for each loop and you should see how it all comes together.  The field around the coil comes directly from the field around a straight wire.

MileHigh
I have modified your pic MH,so as it looks more like what i believe is to be true. From this you can see how by having more turns with the same current builds a higher magnetic field strength at each end of the magnet. What is happening is you are simply building on from the two wire pic i posted,and the center turns (mid point of the dipole)has the lowest value,and thus the lowest field strength. The further away from center we get,the larger and stronger the field become's. As in the pic i posted with the two wires,we are forming the very same peanut shaped field,only on a larger scale,as we have more turns of wire. It is just the same as adding magnets together,but insted we are adding wires together.

P.S-i only done the top half of your pic-the bottom will of course be the same as the top in our two dimensional pic
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 09, 2015, 02:34:27 PM
MileHigh
I do indeed agree MH,but you have more than one loop in an electromagnet. Now,what dose the magnetic field look like around two wires close together with the current flowing in the same direction-->see pic below-what shape is the magnetic field MH?.
With only two windings widely-spaced it appears to be peanut shaped.

However, make that 100 closely-spaced windings, over all now what do you have?

Observe above the wire and below the wire, and assume this is the top half of a solenoid coil. Notice that the field above the wire, as a composite, it's direction is to the left. This would be outside the coil. Notice also the field below the wire, as a composite, it's direction is to the right. This would be inside the coil core. Note also that the windings would be much closer together than depicted in your picture, so the field outside and inside would be smoother and more uniform.

The field directions in the pic below are opposite to your pic, but the idea is the same.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 09, 2015, 03:33:30 PM
The dips in a coarsely wound solenoid have nothing in common with the undipped field of a magnetic dipole such as a bar magnet.
Decide whether you are analyzing two attracting current loops that far apart or close together (equivalent to a continuous bar magnet) and stop confusing these two cases.
http://youtu.be/Q-V-m_tbbwg
http://youtu.be/-NeF7u_9_Sw?t=1m42s

The BB field shape extrapolations from one to the other are non sequitir!

The BB field of a coarse solenoid looks like this:
http://youtu.be/GI2Prj4CGZI

...so OMG!, the field has 4 dips, so all bar magnets must have 4 dips, too...aaaaaaaaaaaa.  (derision intended)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 09, 2015, 04:24:32 PM
@MH
Quote
No way, those tests were inconclusive.What you would have to do with a Hall sensor would be to find the actual direction of the magnetic field around the magnet.


I would agree, when considering what I was seeing in real time the individual graphs I posted seemed to lack insight. I mean I understand what I was doing and what I was seeing however it still does not show us the big picture.


As well I had plotted the 2D field on many occasions in the past however every year I clean house. I take literally stacks of notes, thousands of pages of notes and diagrams and burn them in my burning barrel usually with a beer in hand. It is my cleansing, a renewal, to ensure I am not tied to my past thoughts and must look to the future.


In any case, a better option may be using a 3 axis gyro/accelerometer I have on hand and two hall sensors offset by 90 degrees. The hardware setup is simple however the code is going to be a little more difficult to plot all the measures within a three dimensional space. A three dimensional color coded picture of the field would be more meaningful in my opinion.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 09, 2015, 04:26:54 PM
Also the BX magnetic field of a bar magnet mapped with a Hall sensor with Method #1 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967) has a dip in a middle for completely different reason than the dip of the BB magnetic field between two widely spaced current loops (http://youtu.be/Q-V-m_tbbwg) measured with Method #3 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).

The mere comparison of BX to BB is like comparing apples to oranges ...different test subjects notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 09, 2015, 05:00:05 PM
OK-one very simple question for all those that think they know all about magnets and magnetism
Why is the north attracted to south but repelled by another north.(and im using north/south as taught in school)-->And dont say the discrete particle theory,as thats absolute crap,and never proven to be fact--just another quantum theory.

Physics dosnt have positive and negative,nor dose it have north and south-->it has CW and CCW.

With electrostatic and magnetic fields there are forces involved. Two positive electrostatic charges will repel one another. Two magnets aligned with opposing poles will repel one another because their fields are of the same "polarity". With magnets, "polarity" really means the over all magnetic moment, vector, or direction of the field.

A ferromagnetic material that has been magnetized has a net electron spin and hence a net magnetic moment. Similar to how two wires carrying current in the same direction will be attracted to each other (due to Lorentz forces), the head of one magnetic moment will be attracted to the tail of another, and so a N attracts a S pole of a PM or solenoid.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 09, 2015, 05:31:28 PM
@tinman
Quote
I have modified your pic MH,so as it looks more like what i believe is to be true. From this you can see how by having more turns with the same current builds a higher magnetic field strength at each end of the magnet. What is happening is you are simply building on from the two wire pic i posted,and the center turns (mid point of the dipole)has the lowest value,and thus the lowest field strength. The further away from center we get,the larger and stronger the field become's. As in the pic i posted with the two wires,we are forming the very same peanut shaped field,only on a larger scale,as we have more turns of wire. It is just the same as adding magnets together,but insted we are adding wires together.


This is not directed at you but moreso a general thought relating to what you have said.


You know it is odd that more people have not bothered to understand the underlying principals of the circuits they build. For instance, in a wire the free electrons jump from one proton shell to the next while the protons remain relatively stationary. The electrical pressure from a source provides the force to move the free electrons however there are always two forces involved. One the negative terminal (more electrons)repelling the free electrons from the source towards the resistance/impedance and second the positive terminal (less electrons) attracting the free electrons back to the source.


Electrostatics 101, and yet we tend to use general terms such as lumped sum Voltage and Current which gives no real insight into what is actually happening. Now if we use an electrometer we may see that the source is little more than a pump with a discharge (Negative terminal-more free electrons) and a suction (positive terminal-less free electrons). Our Sink the resistance on the other side of our circuit then does something which is kind of amazing.


On one side of our resistance we have an abundance of electrons(negative) and on the other side a lack of electrons(positive). At which point we might understand that what we call the dissipation of energy relates to the points at which the two separate conditions of high electron density and low electron density meet. Now if we have a high electron density on one side and a low electron density on the other side then what do we get when the two meet?, we get ambient conditions which is neither a high nor low condition. At the exact center of every resistance an electrometer will measure no charged state and will see ambient conditions.


We should remember the free electrons are energy carriers and the energy in the circuit relates to the difference in electron density not the electrons in themselves. Why it is no more difficult to understand than a water pump producing a high/low water pressure and a water motor diffusing this pressure difference to ambient conditions or no pressure. Again the water is not the energy in the system the condition of the water is, the water is an energy carrier.


As such it is common sense and intuitive to understand that the energy source divides ambient conditions into two distinct conditions while the energy sink unites the two distinct conditions to become ambient conditions once more. At the exact center of the source/sink we will always find ambient conditions...zero. This is called " The Trinity of Unity", the three conditions of High, Ambient and Low. The Energy moving inward or outward from a singular point of ambient conditions.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 09, 2015, 08:25:35 PM
I have modified your pic MH,so as it looks more like what i believe is to be true. From this you can see how by having more turns with the same current builds a higher magnetic field strength at each end of the magnet. What is happening is you are simply building on from the two wire pic i posted,and the center turns (mid point of the dipole)has the lowest value,and thus the lowest field strength. The further away from center we get,the larger and stronger the field become's. As in the pic i posted with the two wires,we are forming the very same peanut shaped field,only on a larger scale,as we have more turns of wire. It is just the same as adding magnets together,but insted we are adding wires together.

P.S-i only done the top half of your pic-the bottom will of course be the same as the top in our two dimensional pic
What you believe is wrong.  It is easily demonstrated using a $2.00 Hall effect sensor, or just by suspending two parallel wires so that they can deflect or attract when you apply current.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 09, 2015, 08:46:07 PM



   Anyone on here actually believe in particle physics and the research that's going on
at CERN? Or is it a load of crap?
               John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 09, 2015, 10:56:27 PM
What you believe is wrong.  It is easily demonstrated using a $2.00 Hall effect sensor, or just by suspending two parallel wires so that they can deflect or attract when you apply current.

I have some ratiometric Hall effect sensors, but unfortunately they only cost me about 50 cents each. Allegro A3503, data sheet attached below. Will those do, even though they are not $2.00 sensors?   ;)

But I don't have a bar magnet! Can you believe it. All I have are disk magnets, ball magnets, small block magnets etc. 

1)Do we think that the community here will accept an experimental result obtained from a stack of disk magnets, instead of a solid bar magnet? If not, why not?

The next thing to do of course is to try to imagine, that is _hypothesize_, what the sensor reading would look like in the various test conditions and under the two competing claims of the shape of the field. As a general principle of experimental design, this should be done _before_ any actual data gathering is done in an experiment.

2)The Hall sensor of course will read its maximum value for a given field strength in a given location if the "field lines" are exactly perpendicular to the sensor surface. Right?

3)At the same location, an angled field, or equivalently an angled sensor, will give a lesser reading. Right?

4)In the "peanut waist" picture, the field lines are not parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack, but dip in at the waist or "Bloch wall"("arrow" pointing toward magnet body) and come back out again ("arrow" pointing away from magnet body) on the other side of the BW. In the conventional picture, the field lines are parallel to the long axis of the stack and there is no "dipping" in and out at a "Bloch Wall" waist or equator. Right?

5)So a Hall sensor held with its plane at right angles to the magnet's long axis, and scanned along the length of the magnet, would read very differently in the two cases. Right?

6)If the "peanut waist" picture is true, the sensor being held at right angles and scanned along the magnet will experience a changing angle of the field as the field dips toward the "Bloch wall" waist, and then an also changing angle as the field dips up out of the equator on the other side. This will cause changing readings as the sensor is scanned past the "Bloch wall equator".  Right?

7)But in the conventional case, with the field lines strictly parallel to the long axis except near the end poles, the sensor will experience the field lines straight through the plane of the sensor, and thus the sensor's reading will remain constant, and _at the maximum value_  as it is scanned along the magnet's long axis. Right?


I have asked seven specific questions, some in the form of testable hypotheses, related to an experiment. Before I proceed further, I would like to hear some opinions about these seven questions. Especially, if a stack of disk magnets is not an acceptable substitute for an actual one-piece bar magnet, please let me know right away, and be sure to tell me why.



p.s. Minnie, particle physics and the CERN research are not a load of crap. But then you knew I'd say that. The hypotheses of the researchers may turn out to be unsupported or even falsified by the data they gather, but that's not crap, it's science.

Of course _some people_ evidently can't tell the difference, even as they sit at their computers designed by people they think are idiots using models they think are crap. It's a good thing they aren't still using CRT monitors... that would be yet another layer of "crap" they have to look past and ignore in order to bolster their pet "theories".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 12:09:30 AM
2)The Hall sensor of course will read its maximum value for a given field strength in a given location if the "field lines" are exactly perpendicular to the sensor surface. Right?
Right. That's what I call BB measurement in Method #3 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).

3)At the same location, an angled field, or equivalently an angled sensor, will give a lesser reading. Right?
Right

4)<snip>... In the conventional picture, the field lines are parallel to the long axis of the stack and there is no "dipping" in and out at a "Bloch Wall" waist or equator. Right?
Right and if  Hall sensor is parallel to the long axis of the stack, then it will read zero there.  Giving an illusion of dipping at the midpoint of this axis.  I call this the measurement of BX  in Method #1 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).

5)So a Hall sensor held with its plane at right angles to the magnet's long axis, and scanned along the length of the magnet, would read very differently in the two cases. Right?
Right.  I call this the measurement of BY  in Method #2 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).

7)But in the conventional case, with the field lines strictly parallel to the long axis except near the end poles, the sensor will experience the field lines straight through the plane of the sensor, and thus the sensor's reading will remain constant, and _at the maximum value_  as it is scanned along the magnet's long axis. Right
Right

I have asked seven specific questions, some in the form of testable hypotheses, related to an experiment. Before I proceed further, I would like to hear some opinions about these seven questions. Especially, if a stack of disk magnets is not an acceptable substitute for an actual one-piece bar magnet,
I don't know but I expect someone to have an issue with the discrepancy.

Besides the mapping the magnet with a Hall sensor there are also methods of mapping it with a piece of ferromagnetic blob (Methods #4, #5, #6 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967)) ...but you'd need a Load Cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_cell#Piezoelectric_load_cell) for that.
Newbie amateurs usually begin with this test because it can be done with a nail and their fingers as the force sensing instrument.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 12:16:10 AM


   Anyone on here actually believe in particle physics and the research that's going on
at CERN? Or is it a load of crap?
               John.
I did say discrete partical physics dose not account for magnetic attraction-nothing to do with there non existance.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 12:39:41 AM
Two like poles repel for the same reason that two opposite poles attract:  The field seeks its lowest energy state.  Separating a pair of poles is analagous to pulling apart the two ends of an extension spring.  This is why all manner of magnetic devices work by reducing the magnetic path length from one pole to the other:  that reduces the energy.  Bringing two like poles together is analagous to pulling on two extension springs each anchored to an opposite wall as the other.
Well thats telling us what is happening,but not how it's happening. In fact,i would like anyone to show me a link that shows how magnetic fields attract and repell each other-what is the physical force that applies these two forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 10, 2015, 12:52:13 AM
Tinsel
What size and kind of magnet do you need for this?
also other needs for this work??


thx
Chet
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 02:05:28 AM
@NoBull:
Thanks for your response. So you agree with the "rights" on all of the 6 hypotheses. But we still don't know if my stack of disks is "good enough" for the experiment. I'd still like to hear from some of the other participants in the discussion about all 7 questions before I proceed further.

@ramset:  Personally, I think that the stack of disks is fine to use instead of a bar magnet. I can make a weak bar magnet by magnetizing a piece of mild steel barstock, of course, but stronger is probably better for this kind of test. Buying a special magnet from, say, K&J Magnetics would be kind of silly, since the shipping cost alone will be quite a bit more than the cost of the magnet, and there would be several days of delay in getting it here. By next Friday the issue will probably be forgotten already.
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=D4Y8

"Other needs for this work"... heh, that's a good one. Some confidence that proper conclusions will be drawn by "the usual suspects" given the observed data, would be nice. 
It all depends on "how fancy" one wants to get. I can spend a day or more programming an Arduino and Processing to display some nice graphs on a computer screen, or I can just show a video of the scanning process and the raw voltage output of the Hall sensor as it is scanned along the magnet. I prefer to do the latter, since it is so simple and, to my thinking, unequivocal in its results.

Allcanadian has already shown data from a similar experiment, with a fancy display and everything. I am not sure from his description about the exact orientation of the Hall sensor and some other important variables. His graphs would make more sense if the x-axis was given in position along the magnet rather than time, though.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 10, 2015, 02:07:51 AM
@TK
Quote
1)Do we think that the community here will accept an experimental result obtained from a stack of disk magnets, instead of a solid bar magnet? If not, why not?

Already done it, not even comparable. I have the same problem you do and have every magnet under the sun except for a long bar magnet.
Quote
2)The Hall sensor of course will read its maximum value for a given field strength in a given location if the "field lines" are exactly perpendicular to the sensor surface. Right?

I think of it as a sensor loop, it measures the magnitude and polarity of the magnetic field within the loop. Try rotating the sensor in the field as you will see what I mean.

Quote
3)At the same location, an angled field, or equivalently an angled sensor, will give a lesser reading. Right?

Exactly and even a slight off angle makes a huge difference. It is actually very hard to keep the sensor stable when amplifying the signal.


Quote
4)In the "peanut waist" picture, the field lines are not parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack, but dip in at the waist or "Bloch wall"("arrow" pointing toward magnet body) and come back out again ("arrow" pointing away from magnet body) on the other side of the BW. In the conventional picture, the field lines are parallel to the long axis of the stack and there is no "dipping" in and out at a "Bloch Wall" waist or equator. Right?

I would agree the picture is incomplete and every time I fire up the sensor I generally learn something new.


Quote
5)So a Hall sensor held with its plane at right angles to the magnet's long axis, and scanned along the length of the magnet, would read very differently in the two cases. Right?

As it should I believe and a rotating sensor or 4 sensors at 90 deg to each other may be the answer but trying to plot this in 3D would be a nightmare.

Quote
6)If the "peanut waist" picture is true, the sensor being held at right angles and scanned along the magnet will experience a changing angle of the field as the field dips toward the "Bloch wall" waist, and then an also changing angle as the field dips up out of the equator on the other side. This will cause changing readings as the sensor is scanned past the "Bloch wall equator".  Right?

That's where a gyro/accelerometer would be awesome I think, I have a few on hand and have been throwing around code on how to plot a moving/rotating sensor :o .
Quote
7)But in the conventional case, with the field lines strictly parallel to the long axis except near the end poles, the sensor will experience the field lines straight through the plane of the sensor, and thus the sensor's reading will remain constant, and _at the maximum value_  as it is scanned along the magnet's long axis. Right?

That is exactly the issue I had and it was constant, the far field would appear constant however the near field not so much. I would think a change in sensor orientation would show an increasing/decreasing field strength dependent on the polarity at that point so long as the sensor rotates about it's own axis. As I said, even a small deviation from the sensor axis ie rotation changes the measure dramatically.


I'm kind of pumped your going to do this and I will be doing my thing on this end. Hopefully Sunday I can start on the gyro/accelerometer code but the processing is going to be the kicker. I'm not even sure how in the hell I'm going to plot this in 3D, lol.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 03:22:08 AM
@AC: Can you explain why a stack of disk magnets is not equivalent to a bar magnet?

Much of the rest of your response is adding complexity to the rather simple hypotheses I stated.  But it appears that you agree with what I stated, and you even have apparently confirmed that your data indicate parallel lines of field instead of the "peanut waist" picture:

Quote
That is exactly the issue I had and it was constant, the far field would appear constant however the near field not so much. I would think a change in sensor orientation would show an increasing/decreasing field strength dependent on the polarity at that point so long as the sensor rotates about it's own axis. As I said, even a small deviation from the sensor axis ie rotation changes the measure dramatically.

Am I right about that? Stripped of the extra stuff about rotation?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 03:35:51 AM
I have some ratiometric Hall effect sensors, but unfortunately they only cost me about 50 cents each. Allegro A3503, data sheet attached below. Will those do, even though they are not $2.00 sensors?   ;)
They of course work fine.
Quote

But I don't have a bar magnet! Can you believe it. All I have are disk magnets, ball magnets, small block magnets etc. 

1)Do we think that the community here will accept an experimental result obtained from a stack of disk magnets, instead of a solid bar magnet? If not, why not?
A stack of short cylindrical magnets magnetized through the thickness work fine.  Anything that ends up making a single composite dipole is fine.  I've done this with bar magnets, cylindrical magnets, plastic magnets etc.
Quote

The next thing to do of course is to try to imagine, that is _hypothesize_, what the sensor reading would look like in the various test conditions and under the two competing claims of the shape of the field. As a general principle of experimental design, this should be done _before_ any actual data gathering is done in an experiment.
I think it is obvious that if the conventional view is correct then the flux densitiy through the sensor and therefore perpendicular to the dipole axis approaches zero near the center of the dipole.  After all, all the flux is supposed to be parallel to the dipole in that region, leaving nothing to be perpendicular.  This should be true independent of which side of the dipole the sensor is located: east or west , and independent of whether the sensor is rotated for with its "south" sensing side towards the dipole center, or the "north" sensing side towards the dipole center.  If the figure eight idea is correct then there should be a big increase in flux density close to the dipole center.  It should manifest as two peaks of opposing polarity.
Quote

2)The Hall sensor of course will read its maximum value for a given field strength in a given location if the "field lines" are exactly perpendicular to the sensor surface. Right?
Yes
Quote

3)At the same location, an angled field, or equivalently an angled sensor, will give a lesser reading. Right?
Yes
Quote

4)In the "peanut waist" picture, the field lines are not parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack, but dip in at the waist or "Bloch wall"("arrow" pointing toward magnet body) and come back out again ("arrow" pointing away from magnet body) on the other side of the BW. In the conventional picture, the field lines are parallel to the long axis of the stack and there is no "dipping" in and out at a "Bloch Wall" waist or equator. Right?
Yes
Quote

5)So a Hall sensor held with its plane at right angles to the magnet's long axis, and scanned along the length of the magnet, would read very differently in the two cases. Right?
Yes
Quote

6)If the "peanut waist" picture is true, the sensor being held at right angles and scanned along the magnet will experience a changing angle of the field as the field dips toward the "Bloch wall" waist, and then an also changing angle as the field dips up out of the equator on the other side. This will cause changing readings as the sensor is scanned past the "Bloch wall equator".  Right?
Yes, moving from N-S the flux density through the sensor will first exhibit a peak that is opposing magnetic polarity from near the north pole on the same side of the magnet, and then moving a little closer to the south pole it should exhibit a second peak in the same magnetic polarity as near the north pole on the same side of the magnet.
Quote

7)But in the conventional case, with the field lines strictly parallel to the long axis except near the end poles, the sensor will experience the field lines straight through the plane of the sensor, and thus the sensor's reading will remain constant, and _at the maximum value_  as it is scanned along the magnet's long axis. Right?
No.  Near the ends of the magnet where there is lots of curl, there will be substantial flux, and therefore flux density that is perpendicular to the dipole axis and registered by the senosr.  The sensor should read just as the diagrams I posted indicate.  Near the middle of the magnet where all the flux lines become parallel the perpendicular flux, and therefore flux density is zero.  A plot of the sensor output will be a non-linear, but monotonic line moving along from one end of the magnet to the other.
Quote


I have asked seven specific questions, some in the form of testable hypotheses, related to an experiment. Before I proceed further, I would like to hear some opinions about these seven questions. Especially, if a stack of disk magnets is not an acceptable substitute for an actual one-piece bar magnet, please let me know right away, and be sure to tell me why.



p.s. Minnie, particle physics and the CERN research are not a load of crap. But then you knew I'd say that. The hypotheses of the researchers may turn out to be unsupported or even falsified by the data they gather, but that's not crap, it's science.

Of course _some people_ evidently can't tell the difference, even as they sit at their computers designed by people they think are idiots using models they think are crap. It's a good thing they aren't still using CRT monitors... that would be yet another layer of "crap" they have to look past and ignore in order to bolster their pet "theories".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 03:47:43 AM
Well thats telling us what is happening,but not how it's happening. In fact,i would like anyone to show me a link that shows how magnetic fields attract and repell each other-what is the physical force that applies these two forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8
The internet features endless loads of misleading crap.  Caveat emptor.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 10, 2015, 03:53:31 AM
@NoBull:
Thanks for your response. So you agree with the "rights" on all of the 6 hypotheses. But we still don't know if my stack of disks is "good enough" for the experiment. I'd still like to hear from some of the other participants in the discussion about all 7 questions before I proceed further.

@ramset:  Personally, I think that the stack of disks is fine to use instead of a bar magnet. I can make a weak bar magnet by magnetizing a piece of mild steel barstock, of course, but stronger is probably better for this kind of test. Buying a special magnet from, say, K&J Magnetics would be kind of silly, since the shipping cost alone will be quite a bit more than the cost of the magnet, and there would be several days of delay in getting it here. By next Friday the issue will probably be forgotten already.
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=D4Y8

"Other needs for this work"... heh, that's a good one. Some confidence that proper conclusions will be drawn by "the usual suspects" given the observed data, would be nice. 
It all depends on "how fancy" one wants to get. I can spend a day or more programming an Arduino and Processing to display some nice graphs on a computer screen, or I can just show a video of the scanning process and the raw voltage output of the Hall sensor as it is scanned along the magnet. I prefer to do the latter, since it is so simple and, to my thinking, unequivocal in its results.

Allcanadian has already shown data from a similar experiment, with a fancy display and everything. I am not sure from his description about the exact orientation of the Hall sensor and some other important variables. His graphs would make more sense if the x-axis was given in position along the magnet rather than time, though.

@TinselKoala,

"Buying a special magnet from, say, K&J Magnetics would be kind of silly, since the shipping cost alone will be quite a bit more than the cost of the magnet",

You're straight out of a tale from Charles Dickens you miserly thread ball Scrooge! Get a job!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 04:01:10 AM
Quote
@TK
Quote
Quote

    1)Do we think that the community here will accept an experimental result obtained from a stack of disk magnets, instead of a solid bar magnet? If not, why not?

Already done it, not even comparable. I have the same problem you do and have every magnet under the sun except for a long bar magnet.
So have I and it works well with any dipole that is substantially longer than the Hall sensor area.
Quote
Quote
Quote

    2)The Hall sensor of course will read its maximum value for a given field strength in a given location if the "field lines" are exactly perpendicular to the sensor surface. Right?

I think of it as a sensor loop, it measures the magnitude and polarity of the magnetic field within the loop. Try rotating the sensor in the field as you will see what I mean.
It measures the average flux density of flux that penetrates the sensor area.
Quote
Quote
Quote

    3)At the same location, an angled field, or equivalently an angled sensor, will give a lesser reading. Right?

Exactly and even a slight off angle makes a huge difference. It is actually very hard to keep the sensor stable when amplifying the signal.

The Allegro parts seem to have little difficulty with this.
Quote
Quote
Quote

    4)In the "peanut waist" picture, the field lines are not parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack, but dip in at the waist or "Bloch wall"("arrow" pointing toward magnet body) and come back out again ("arrow" pointing away from magnet body) on the other side of the BW. In the conventional picture, the field lines are parallel to the long axis of the stack and there is no "dipping" in and out at a "Bloch Wall" waist or equator. Right?

I would agree the picture is incomplete and every time I fire up the sensor I generally learn something new.
Why the non-responsive reply?  TK asks what you believe the hypothesis predicts.
Quote

Quote
Quote

    5)So a Hall sensor held with its plane at right angles to the magnet's long axis, and scanned along the length of the magnet, would read very differently in the two cases. Right?

As it should I believe and a rotating sensor or 4 sensors at 90 deg to each other may be the answer but trying to plot this in 3D would be a nightmare.
The simple yes was adequate.
Quote

Quote
Quote

    6)If the "peanut waist" picture is true, the sensor being held at right angles and scanned along the magnet will experience a changing angle of the field as the field dips toward the "Bloch wall" waist, and then an also changing angle as the field dips up out of the equator on the other side. This will cause changing readings as the sensor is scanned past the "Bloch wall equator".  Right?

That's where a gyro/accelerometer would be awesome I think, I have a few on hand and have been throwing around code on how to plot a moving/rotating sensor :o .
Quote
Again, why the non-responsive reply?  TK asks you to make a prediction based on the hypothesis.  If a hypothesis cannot make testable predictions, then that hypothesis has little value.
Quote
Quote
    7)But in the conventional case, with the field lines strictly parallel to the long axis except near the end poles, the sensor will experience the field lines straight through the plane of the sensor, and thus the sensor's reading will remain constant, and _at the maximum value_  as it is scanned along the magnet's long axis. Right?

That is exactly the issue I had and it was constant, the far field would appear constant however the near field not so much. I would think a change in sensor orientation would show an increasing/decreasing field strength dependent on the polarity at that point so long as the sensor rotates about it's own axis. As I said, even a small deviation from the sensor axis ie rotation changes the measure dramatically.
Really?  You measured maximum flux density with the sensor face perpendicular to the magnet's axis when located at the center of the magnet?  I would like to see a picture.  You show me yours and I will happily post mine.
Quote


I'm kind of pumped your going to do this and I will be doing my thing on this end. Hopefully Sunday I can start on the gyro/accelerometer code but the processing is going to be the kicker. I'm not even sure how in the hell I'm going to plot this in 3D, lol.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 04:12:20 AM
  If the figure eight idea is correct then there should be a big increase in flux density close to the dipole center.  It should manifest as two peaks of opposing polarity.YesYesYesYesYes, moving from N-S the flux density through the sensor will first exhibit a peak that is opposing magnetic polarity from near the north pole on the same side of the magnet, and then moving a little closer to the south pole it should exhibit a second peak in the same magnetic polarity as near the north pole on the same side of the magnet.No.  Near the ends of the magnet where there is lots of curl, there will be substantial flux, and therefore flux density that is perpendicular to the dipole axis and registered by the senosr.  The sensor should read just as the diagrams I posted indicate.  Near the middle of the magnet where all the flux lines become parallel the perpendicular flux, and therefore flux density is zero.  A plot of the sensor output will be a non-linear, but monotonic line moving along from one end of the magnet to the other.
What a lot of crap Mark.Are you now telling TK how to run this test so as it shows your uniform field from one end to another?.
Quote:- If the figure eight idea is correct then there should be a big increase in flux density close to the dipole center.
Bullshit. There should be a decrease as the two opposite fields cancel each other out.

Quote:- A plot of the sensor output will be a non-linear, but monotonic line moving along from one end of the magnet to the other.
And why would it be non-linear if this field is suppose to be parallel to the dipole.

If this parallel field dose not change from one end to the other of the dipole,then neither should the readings from the hall sensor. If there is a change as i am saying,then the hall sensor will pick up that change near the center of the dipole.

@TK
I have said nothing in support of this bloch wall crap,and i am fully aware that a bloch wall dose NOT exist at the center of the dipole. If we face two north fields together from two magnet's,and place a steel bar between those two apposing fields,then you will have what might represent a bloch wall,as the domains now are facing opposite directions-are not aligned.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 04:16:57 AM
@TinselKoala,

You're straight out of a tale from Charles Dickens you miserly thread ball Scrooge! Get a job!
Bad form psycho-i mean synchro.
You have no idea of TK's position, so how the hell can you make a stupid statement like that.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 10, 2015, 04:17:19 AM
A stack of disk magnets would be perfectly acceptable.  Heck, even a single cylinder magnet that makes nice flush contact with a long iron rod would be a pretty good substitute for the real thing.

Or perhaps on second thought, a long iron rod with mating cylindrical magnets on each end.  The art of cheating.  lol
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 10, 2015, 04:18:58 AM
Dimensions: 1/2" x 1/4" x 1" thick
Tolerances: ±0.004" x ±0.004" x ±0.004"
Material: NdFeB, Grade N42
Plating/Coating: Ni-Cu-Ni (Nickel)
Magnetization Direction: Thru Thickness
Weight: 0.54 oz. (15.4 g)
Pull Force, Case 1: 10.54 lbs
Pull Force, Case 2: 10.54 lbs
Surface Field: 6474 Gauss
Max Operating Temp: 176ºF (80ºC)
Brmax: 13,200 Gauss
BHmax: 42 MGOe

The B84X0 is what many people commonly refer to as a "bar" magnet, as it is magnetized through the 1" dimension.  The poles are located on the smallest ends, so they behave like the old fashioned alnico bar magnets that have been used in school demonstrations. 


 Price: $4.05

Shipping costs for this 1/2 oz magnet may put poor TK in dire straits!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 04:56:25 AM
Here is a really simple experiment. Lets just take a reed switch,LED and a 2.5 volt power source.Hook all in series,and then run the reed switch along the length of the magnet. If the LED stays on,then there is a magnetic field,if it go's out near the center of the dipole,then there is no magnetic field.

How dose a reed switch work-Quote wikipedia- The reed switch is an electrical switch operated by an applied magnetic field. It was invented at Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1936 by W. B. Ellwood. It consists of a pair of contacts on ferrous metal reeds in a hermetically sealed glass envelope. The contacts may be normally open, closing when a magnetic field is present,
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 05:43:52 AM
Quote from: ME
7)But in the conventional case, with the field lines strictly parallel to the long axis except near the end poles, the sensor will experience the field lines straight through the plane of the sensor, and thus the sensor's reading will remain constant, and _at the maximum value_  as it is scanned along the magnet's long axis. Right?
Quote from: MarkE
No.  Near the ends of the magnet where there is lots of curl, there will be substantial flux, and therefore flux density that is perpendicular to the dipole axis and registered by the senosr.  The sensor should read just as the diagrams I posted indicate.  Near the middle of the magnet where all the flux lines become parallel the perpendicular flux, and therefore flux density is zero.  A plot of the sensor output will be a non-linear, but monotonic line moving along from one end of the magnet to the other.
Think about that again, please. The question referred to a Hall sensor whose plane is perpendicular to the long axis of the magnet. Perhaps you missed that part. If you look at Tinman's drawing above, you can see that in the central region the field lines are roughly parallel to each other and to the long axis of the magnet, and maintain a nearly constant density for some distance. The longer the magnet, the more parallel they are and the more constant the density along the mid portion of the magnet's length. Hence, a perpendicular Hall sensor will experience flux very nearly perpendicular to its plane and also with almost constant density while being scanned along this region. In fact, if the Hall sensor is rotated appropriately at the curly ends, it is possible to maintain a nearly constant reading from fully in contact with the pole, following around the curly corner, scanning along the length of the magnet, then curling around the corner again at the other pole. This action keeps the plane of the Hall sensor perpendicular to the field lines, as drawn in the diagram above, during the entire scan, and the density of the flux intercepted by the Hall sensor can also remain nearly constant throughout the scan including the curling portions, somewhat dependent on the actual geometry of the magnet. A fat "bar" magnet whose width is on the same order as the length will have less concentrated flux at the curling portions than will a long skinny magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 10, 2015, 05:44:42 AM
Rotation

"Rotating the magnet or reed switch, normal to their axes, reverses magnetic polarity resulting in two closures per revolution. When these axes are parallel, the switch closes. When the axes are perpendicular, the switch opens. Although the poles reverse, they still induce the opposite poles that close the reed switch".

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 05:49:19 AM
Here is a really simple experiment. Lets just take a reed switch,LED and a 2.5 volt power source.Hook all in series,and then run the reed switch along the length of the magnet. If the LED stays on,then there is a magnetic field,if it go's out near the center of the dipole,then there is no magnetic field.

How dose a reed switch work-Quote wikipedia- The reed switch is an electrical switch operated by an applied magnetic field. It was invented at Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1936 by W. B. Ellwood. It consists of a pair of contacts on ferrous metal reeds in a hermetically sealed glass envelope. The contacts may be normally open, closing when a magnetic field is present,

A normal reed switch is not biased, it is just like a bit of iron: Its contacts are attracted by either pole of a magnet. In the central portion of your test, the reed contacts are equally attracted to both poles of the magnet so they don't move. This does _not_ mean that there is no magnetic field present! Just that the forces of attraction in both directions are equal and balanced.

You can bias a reed switch to respond only to one pole of the magnet by adding a balancing magnet on the other side of the switch, to cancel the force of attraction to one pole and reinforce the attraction to the other pole. Again, you are not cancelling the _fields_, just the experienced forces from the fields.

If I suspend a weight by a rope, have I cancelled the field of gravity on the weight? Of course not, I have just balanced its force downward by another force upward.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 05:53:00 AM
@TinselKoala,

"Buying a special magnet from, say, K&J Magnetics would be kind of silly, since the shipping cost alone will be quite a bit more than the cost of the magnet",

You're straight out of a tale from Charles Dickens you miserly thread ball Scrooge! Get a job!

Scrooge you, buddy. If you think it is an effective use of funds to pay 12 dollars to ship a 4 dollar magnet, that is your business and you are welcome to do it. My statement stands: It is kind of silly to do that, unless there is a very good reason to do so. And performing an experiment whose results you won't accept anyway, does not qualify as a very good reason.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 10, 2015, 06:04:15 AM
Scrooge you, buddy. If you think it is an effective use of funds to pay 12 dollars to ship a 4 dollar magnet, that is your business and you are welcome to do it. My statement stands: It is kind of silly to do that, unless there is a very good reason to do so. And performing an experiment whose results you won't accept anyway, does not qualify as a very good reason.

You have me howling you miserable "Skin Flint"! I tip my cleaning maid at least that much. You sound like you eat from trash cans! If you spent a fraction of the time you waste filling this forum up with useless verbosity on a part time job you could probably afford to eat more then dog kibble.

This is a quote from K&J:

USPS First Class Mail is a flat rate of $5. So that's a whole total of under ten bucks you're squealing about like a stuck pig!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 06:12:59 AM
A normal reed switch is not biased, it is just like a bit of iron: Its contacts are attracted by either pole of a magnet. In the central portion of your test, the reed contacts are equally attracted to both poles of the magnet so they don't move. This does _not_ mean that there is no magnetic field present! Just that the forces of attraction in both directions are equal and balanced.

You can bias a reed switch to respond only to one pole of the magnet by adding a balancing magnet on the other side of the switch, to cancel the force of attraction to one pole and reinforce the attraction to the other pole. Again, you are not cancelling the _fields_, just the experienced forces from the fields.

If I suspend a weight by a rope, have I cancelled the field of gravity on the weight? Of course not, I have just balanced its force downward by another force upward.
As you can see in my pic above,even when the reed switch is closer to one pole than the other,it will still remain open. I have mapped a long PM with the reed switch,and guess what-->yes,the peanut shape is clearly drawn around the magnet.
A ballance would come only from the center point of the magnet,and it clearly dose not.

In regards to your statement ,Quote: If I suspend a weight by a rope, have I cancelled the field of gravity on the weight? Of course not, I have just balanced its force downward by another force upward.
 
And what would be the net result of two equal and opposite forces?, Thats right=0

Please run your hall sensor test as you think it should be done TK,and let us know how it go's.

Wonder if it turns out the same as the reed switch test,the inductor test,the ferrofluid test,and one more yet to come.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 10, 2015, 06:37:21 AM
You have me howling you miserable "Skin Flint"! I tip my cleaning maid at least that much. You sound like you eat from trash cans! If you spent a fraction of the time you waste filling this forum up with useless verbosity on a part time job you could probably afford to eat more then dog kibble.

This is a quote from K&J:

USPS First Class Mail is a flat rate of $5. So that's a whole total of under ten bucks you're squealing about like a stuck pig!

But wait.  Isn't TK a paid shill?  Therefore he must have thousands of dollars at his disposal right?

But, if he is not a paid shill...maybe $10 is a lot of money to him, as is a lot of money to me.  As he has said, IF he did invest this money....the results would be poo-pooed anyway.  Money is very tight for a lot of us here my friends.  I am sure he did a cost/benefit analysis on this and I agree with his conclusion.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on January 10, 2015, 06:43:07 AM
Hi All,

I've been testing with my setup and this is the closest analogy I could find from the results I'm getting(from my setup a couple of pages back).

The measurement is relative to the device doing the measurement.

If the coil is parallel to the magnet it is equivalent to measuring across each battery or with the field.

If the coil is perpendicular to the magnet it is equivalent to measuring from ground or between the fields. This will also show the polarity flip from the top half(N) to bottom half(S).


Hi TinselKoala,

Answer to your questions

1) It should work the same, but to clear doubts it could be with both solid cylinder and disc magnets.

2) Hope so, isn't that what it is designed for? :)

3) Not sure on the sensor but can say yes from my coil tests.

4) This is where I'm visualizing more like a neutral plane where the two fields equalize.

5) This again from my own tests is yes.

6) There is a polarity flip in the middle when the measuring perpendicular to the field.

7) Yes to some error threshold, it may diverge some. There is never a perfect magnet.

I could be wrong but always open to learning.


Hi Tinman,

Thanks for the tests. Were the measurements perpendicular to the field? I think the more data we can get the better.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 10, 2015, 06:48:05 AM
Tinman:

Look at the image for the magnetic field for a single loop of wire.

A coil is just a bunch of loops of wire in a row.  So what does the magnetic field look like?  It's just a bunch of magnetic fields from single loops of wire added together.  Just do the vector addition in your head, forget about all of the strategies for making physical measurements for a second.

This "figure-8" business is completely wrong.  Just work out what the magnetic field looks like in your head.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 06:56:37 AM

Hi Tinman,

Thanks for the tests. Were the measurements perpendicular to the field? I think the more data we can get the better.

Ah-bingo with the pic below.
The reed switch was held both parallel and virtical(right angles)to the dipole plane,and the results were the same.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 07:09:32 AM
Tinman:

Look at the image for the magnetic field for a single loop of wire.

A coil is just a bunch of loops of wire in a row.  So what does the magnetic field look like?  It's just a bunch of magnetic fields from single loops of wire added together.  Just do the vector addition in your head, forget about all of the strategies for making physical measurements for a second.

This "figure-8" business is completely wrong.  Just work out what the magnetic field looks like in your head.

MileHigh
No different than adding disk magnets together MH,the more you add ,the larger and stronger the field grow's(to a point) The field from the first loop is additive to the field of the next loop.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 07:16:17 AM
Note what they have to say about useing iron filings to show a magnetic field.
http://www.magnetage.com/The_Figure_Eight_WYWS.html
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 08:22:26 AM
Quote
author=tinman link=topic=14974.msg432056#msg432056 date=1420859540]
What a lot of crap Mark.Are you now telling TK how to run this test so as it shows your uniform field from one end to another?.
No, I am telling TK what to expect under two different hypotheses.
Quote
Quote
Quote:- If the figure eight idea is correct then there should be a big increase in flux density close to the dipole center.
Bullshit. There should be a decrease as the two opposite fields cancel each other out.
Ah, perhaps the light is coming on for you.  If there is no orthogonal flux, then there is no evidence that the flux forms a figure eight.  So let's extend this:  What is to say that there aren't dozens or hundreds of figure eights between the poles that all cancel out, leaving us with the consistent field distribution shown in countless experiments and established theory?  IOW, while we could consider any dipole to be the linear concatenation of many dipoles, once we do the vector math we get to the conventional view of net flux taking a contiguous path from pole to pole.  And in that either one must either adopt a representation of an infinite number of loops around an infinite number of dipoles which is of no practical value, or one must take the net sum which gives us what all reliable experiments show:  a contiguous field from pole to pole.
Quote

Quote
Quote:- A plot of the sensor output will be a non-linear, but monotonic line moving along from one end of the magnet to the other.
And why would it be non-linear if this field is suppose to be parallel to the dipole.
Because the field is developed by a dipole, the contours form a curve.  The curve comes dead parallel to the dipole at the center.  Everwhere else along and outside themagnet center the curve has a slope.
Quote

If this parallel field dose not change from one end to the other of the dipole,then neither should the readings from the hall sensor. If there is a change as i am saying,then the hall sensor will pick up that change near the center of the dipole.
If wishes were granted....  The field follows contours.  It is not a step value somewhere near each pole and some other fixed value in between.  The flux, and consequently the flux density perpendicular to the magnet comes to zero only at the midpoint.
Quote

@TK
I have said nothing in support of this bloch wall crap,and i am fully aware that a bloch wall dose NOT exist at the center of the dipole. If we face two north fields together from two magnet's,and place a steel bar between those two apposing fields,then you will have what might represent a bloch wall,as the domains now are facing opposite directions-are not aligned.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 08:26:41 AM
Here is a really simple experiment. Lets just take a reed switch,LED and a 2.5 volt power source.Hook all in series,and then run the reed switch along the length of the magnet. If the LED stays on,then there is a magnetic field,if it go's out near the center of the dipole,then there is no magnetic field.

How dose a reed switch work-Quote wikipedia- The reed switch is an electrical switch operated by an applied magnetic field. It was invented at Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1936 by W. B. Ellwood. It consists of a pair of contacts on ferrous metal reeds in a hermetically sealed glass envelope. The contacts may be normally open, closing when a magnetic field is present,
You need to learn the difference between:  field, flux, and flux density.  A reed switch closes when sufficient flux at a high enough density is orthogonal to the reeds to overcome the spring force that holds them apart.   Reed switches use iron leads typically with Cu cladding.  This makes each reed into a pole shoe.  If you place a reed switch next to a little disk magnet, the reed closes when it is parallel to the magnetization axis because the leads act like pole shoes linking each one of the reeds to one pole or the other.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 08:34:22 AM
Think about that again, please. The question referred to a Hall sensor whose plane is perpendicular to the long axis of the magnet. Perhaps you missed that part. If you look at Tinman's drawing above, you can see that in the central region the field lines are roughly parallel to each other and to the long axis of the magnet, and maintain a nearly constant density for some distance. The longer the magnet, the more parallel they are and the more constant the density along the mid portion of the magnet's length. Hence, a perpendicular Hall sensor will experience flux very nearly perpendicular to its plane and also with almost constant density while being scanned along this region. In fact, if the Hall sensor is rotated appropriately at the curly ends, it is possible to maintain a nearly constant reading from fully in contact with the pole, following around the curly corner, scanning along the length of the magnet, then curling around the corner again at the other pole. This action keeps the plane of the Hall sensor perpendicular to the field lines, as drawn in the diagram above, during the entire scan, and the density of the flux intercepted by the Hall sensor can also remain nearly constant throughout the scan including the curling portions, somewhat dependent on the actual geometry of the magnet. A fat "bar" magnet whose width is on the same order as the length will have less concentrated flux at the curling portions than will a long skinny magnet.
Unless I am terribly mistaken you describe just as in my drawings, the Hall sensor being face flat against the side of the magnet.  Unless you've got a really long magnet, the only place where the flux perpendicular to the magnet and therefore through the Hall sensor falls to zero is half way between the north and south poles.  "Nearly constant" is not "nearly enough" to make the perpendicular component fall to zero.  Rotating the Hall sensor so that it is sensitive to flux density  parallel to the magnet changes things a lot.  There with a long magnet the parallel flux density can be relatively constant over significant distances.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 08:39:00 AM
As you can see in my pic above,even when the reed switch is closer to one pole than the other,it will still remain open. I have mapped a long PM with the reed switch,and guess what-->yes,the peanut shape is clearly drawn around the magnet.
A ballance would come only from the center point of the magnet,and it clearly dose not.

In regards to your statement ,Quote: If I suspend a weight by a rope, have I cancelled the field of gravity on the weight? Of course not, I have just balanced its force downward by another force upward.
 
And what would be the net result of two equal and opposite forces?, Thats right=0

Please run your hall sensor test as you think it should be done TK,and let us know how it go's.

Wonder if it turns out the same as the reed switch test,the inductor test,the ferrofluid test,and one more yet to come.
No evidence supports this idea of yours.  We have been through it over and over again.  When shown that the figure eight depiction does not show up in experiments you offer the special pleading that it is really there but hidden by superposition.  The problem with your superposition claim is that we can superimpose lots of slices of any magnet and we get the familiar and correct contiguous contours from pole to pole.  There is nothing special about deciding to treat the one magnet as a concatention of two, or three, or five hundred magnets.  Once all the vector addition is done, the net field behaves just as conventional science tells us.  It appears as only one contiguous contour from one pole to the other and not as some greater number of sub loops.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 08:41:25 AM
Note what they have to say about useing iron filings to show a magnetic field.
http://www.magnetage.com/The_Figure_Eight_WYWS.html
All that is showing is that the flux density concentrates at the poles.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 10:01:48 AM
No evidence supports this idea of yours.  We have been through it over and over again.  When shown that the figure eight depiction does not show up in experiments you offer the special pleading that it is really there but hidden by superposition.  The problem with your superposition claim is that we can superimpose lots of slices of any magnet and we get the familiar and correct contiguous contours from pole to pole.  There is nothing special about deciding to treat the one magnet as a concatention of two, or three, or five hundred magnets.  Once all the vector addition is done, the net field behaves just as conventional science tells us.  It appears as only one contiguous contour from one pole to the other and not as some greater number of sub loops.
In actual fact,i have performed many experiments that support my claim,and the best you have to offer is the iron filings. The field around a magnet changes over a distance from on pole to another-->the field between poles is NOT the same,and where this transition takes place is a null zone,a zone where there is no magnetic field potential. This zone dosnt attract feromagnetic material,it dosnt induce flux into an inductor,and it wont even close a reed switch,and yet here you are telling other people how to conduct experiments to show this mystical field of yours. No,dont do it that way TK,or it will show exactly what the other team are saying-a dip in magnetic field strength near the center of the magnet-
Quote: Unless you've got a really long magnet, the only place where the flux perpendicular to the magnet and therefore through the Hall sensor falls to zero is half way between the north and south poles.
Now why would it fall to 0 if there is a field there?. A magnetic field has no lines of force,nor some mystical flow of something-it's either there or its not. The way it sounds like your trying to explain it Mark is like saying you have to put your finger in a glass of water a certain way before it gets wet.
'
You contradict your self when you say things like-the hall sensor must face this way,as thats the way the flux is flowing.
What bollocks is this,flux dosnt flow,and field lines only show up in your iron filing experiment,and yet you know as well as i do that there is NO lines of flux-->but you assure us that the iron filings experiment is correct ???--.fancy that,a correct test method that shows us things that we all know arnt there.
There is two states of a magnetic field-an increase in field strength,and a decrease in field strength of each pole,and when mapped out in many different ways,it IS the shape of a peanut or figure 8.

Where are all your own test Mark?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 10, 2015, 10:49:05 AM



 Tinman,
             how does diagram in reply 755 fit in with your ideas?
             Thank you John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 10:55:39 AM
In actual fact,i have performed many experiments that support my claim,and the best you have to offer is the iron filings. The field around a magnet changes over a distance from on pole to another-->the field between poles is NOT the same,and where this transition takes place is a null zone,a zone where there is no magnetic field potential. This zone dosnt attract feromagnetic material,it dosnt induce flux into an inductor,and it wont even close a reed switch,and yet here you are telling other people how to conduct experiments to show this mystical field of yours.
Of all of those, the only statement that is correcT is that the field around a magnet changes over distance from pole to pole.  It has been shown to you but for some reason you choose to ignore it that the flux density perpendicular to a dipole goes to zero midway between the poles.  The flux density parallel to the dipole axis does not go to zero anywhere.  It just gets smaller and smaller the further one moves from the dipole.  It does so at a 1/r3 rate.
Quote

No,dont do it that way TK,or it will show exactly what the other team are saying-a dip in magnetic field strength near the center of the magnet-
I have not told TK not to perform any experiment.
Quote

Quote
Quote: Unless you've got a really long magnet, the only place where the flux perpendicular to the magnet and therefore through the Hall sensor falls to zero is half way between the north and south poles.
Now why would it fall to 0 if there is a field there?
there is a field there, but at the midpoint the flux is all oriented parallel to the magnet and none perpendicular to the magnet.
Quote
   A magnetic field has no lines of force,nor some mystical flow of something-it's either there or its not. The way it sounds like your trying to explain it Mark is like saying you have to put your finger in a glass of water a certain way before it gets wet.
Whatever it may sound like to you, at any point where the flux density is zero in some direction is no different than standing on a surface that is flat in one direction, such as a level ramp.  Gravity does not apply any force along the horizontal axis.
Quote
'
You contradict your self when you say things like-the hall sensor must face this way,as thats the way the flux is flowing.
A Hall effect sensor detects flux density that runs perpendicular to the sensor surface.  Just as a weigh scale must be oriented horizontally to find the force of gravity acting on some mass, a Hall effect sensor's plane must be oriented perpendicular to the direction of flux that you would like to detect with it.  If one wants to detect the flux density running perpendicular to a magnet the sensor's plane must be oriented parallel to the magnet.  If one wants to detect the flux density running parallel to a magnte the sensor's plane must be perpendicular to the magnet.
Quote
What bollocks is this,flux dosnt flow,and field lines only show up in your iron filing experiment,and yet you know as well as i do that there is NO lines of flux-->but you assure us that the iron filings experiment is correct ???--.fancy that,a correct test method that shows us things that we all know arnt there.
I don't know what has got you all tied up in the knots that you are in.  But you keep compounding one wrong assertion on top of another.
Quote
There is two states of a magnetic field-an increase in field strength,and a decrease in field strength of each pole,and when mapped out in many different ways,it IS the shape of a peanut or figure 8.
The flux density of a dipole magnet is highest at the poles.  That should be self-evident.  The field contour of a dipole magnet is continuous from pole to pole.
Quote

Where are all your own test Mark?
I have performed many tests.  What specifically would you like to see?

The only thing that I can figure here is that you are hung up on the fact that field lines are just a mapping mechanism. Just as the density of contour lines on an elevation map indicate slope, the density of contour lines in a magnetic field representation indicate magnetic flux density. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 11:16:56 AM
Of all of those, the only statement that is correc is that the field around a magnet changes over distance from pole to pole.  It has been shown to you but for some reason you choose to ignore it that the flux density perpendicular to a dipole goes to zero midway between the poles.  The flux density parallel to the dipole axis does not go to zero anywhere.  It just gets smaller and smaller the further one moves from the dipole.  It does so at a 1/r3 rate.I have not told TK not to perform any experiment.Now why would it fall to 0 if there is a field there?there is a field there, but at the midpoint the flux is all oriented parallel to the magnet and none perpendicular to the magnet.Whatever it may sound like to you, at any point where the flux density is zero in some direction is no different than standing on a surface that is flat in one direction, such as a level ramp.  Gravity does not apply any force along the horizontal axis.A Hall effect sensor detects flux density that runs perpendicular to the sensor surface.  Just as a weigh scale must be oriented horizontally to find the force of gravity acting on some mass, a Hall effect sensor's plane must be oriented perpendicular to the direction of flux that you would like to detect with it.  If one wants to detect the flux density running perpendicular to a magnet the sensor's plane must be oriented parallel to the magnet.  If one wants to detect the flux density running parallel to a magnte the sensor's plane must be perpendicular to the magnet.I don't know what has got you all tied up in the knots that you are in.  But you keep compounding one wrong assertion on top of another.The flux density of a dipole magnet is highest at the poles.  That should be self-evident.  The field contour of a dipole magnet is continuous from pole to pole.I have performed many tests.  What specifically would you like to see?
You are talking about fields of dreams Mark. It is clear that you and i have a difference of opinion when it comes to magnetic field's. A magnetic field to me is something that can do work when in motion,and induce flux into feromagnetic materials,where as your field at the center can do no work when in motion,nor can it induce flux into feromagnetic materials. The field at the center of a dipole is a mixture of two different forces that are equal in strength and opposite in direction,and the net resultant force is 0.
An engine that dosnt run is nothing more than a show piece,and has no pratical use.

Quote: Gravity does not apply any force along the horizontal axis.
It applies a force at right angles to the horizontal plane.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 11:26:47 AM
You are talking about fields of dreams Mark. It is clear that you and i have a difference of opinion when it comes to magnetic field's. A magnetic field to me is something that can do work when in motion,and induce flux into feromagnetic materials,where as your field at the center can do no work when in motion,nor can it induce flux into feromagnetic materials.
Where have I said such things? I think you have conflated concepts of:  field, potential, flux, and flux density.
Quote
  The field at the center of a dipole is a mixture of two different forces that are equal in strength and opposite in direction,and the net resultant force is 0.
Here again you have mixed different concepts together.  Since you seem impervious to anything that I have to say, go spend a couple of dollars on a Hall effect sensor and see if you can find some enlightenment about what flux density looks like at different points and orientations within the magnetic field of a dipole.  Just keep in your mind what the sensor measures:  average flux density that penetrates, IE is perpendicular to the sensor surface.
Quote
An engine that dosnt run is nothing more than a show piece,and has no pratical use.

Quote
Quote: Gravity does not apply any force along the horizontal axis.
It applies a force at right angles to the horizontal plane.
Which is to say it does not apply any force along the horizontal axis.  It is rather convenient or we would have to hold on for dear life just to remain seated in a chair.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 12:13:40 PM
Which is to say it does not apply any force along the horizontal axis.  It is rather convenient or we would have to hold on for dear life just to remain seated in a chair.
Are we doing 101 on gravitational fields now?

Quote:  It is rather convenient or we would have to hold on for dear life just to remain seated in a chair.
Or the chair would just come along for the ride.
Wouldnt it be a hoot if we could go into gravitational repulsion mode-just like we can with magnet's. Food for thought ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 12:31:00 PM
A normal reed switch is not biased, it is just like a bit of iron: Its contacts are attracted by either pole of a magnet. In the central portion of your test, the reed contacts are equally attracted to both poles of the magnet so they don't move. This does _not_ mean that there is no magnetic field present!
Yes, a reed switch is not a B field detector in the perpendicular direction like the Hall sensor, rather the reed switch is a B gradient detector just like any blob of a ferromagnetic material experiencing attraction in a vicinity of a magnet.

People really need to be on alert for this difference!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 12:47:09 PM
This will also show the polarity flip from the top half(N) to bottom half(S).
Magnetic field B has a direction - not polarity. 
The direction of the B field does not switch the N-S direction around the midpoint of a magnet.

What he calls N-S Polarity in this case is a manifestation of force acting on some ferromagnetic test object, which is related to the gradient of B - not its direction, nor magnitude. 
Indeed the direction of this force switches the N-S direction around the midpoint of a magnet.

Again a guy is confusing the force on a ferromagnetic blob (related to the gradient of B) with the direction and intensity of a magnetic field B.

The same mistake, over and over...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 12:55:35 PM
This "figure-8" business is completely wrong.  Just work out what the magnetic field looks like in your head.
Yes, it is wrong when applied to the shape of magnetic flux lines.

...but he is not even referring to the shape of magnetic flux lines but to the force of attraction on some ferromagnetic blob in the vicinity of a magnet which he has felt with his fingers.  Such force really dips in the midpoint of a bar magnet, so it is no wonder that he came to the fig 8 conclusion.

the field between poles is NOT the same,and where this transition takes place is a null zone,a zone where there is no magnetic field potential. This zone dosnt attract feromagnetic material,it dosnt induce flux into an inductor,and it wont even close a reed switch
Look, he is talking about a "null zone" between poles and a lack of attraction force to a ferromagnetic blob there, he is not talking about magnetic flux density B there. He is conflating the two concepts.  The same mistake over and over...

MileHigh, you are advanced enough to point out where his mistake comes from.  This is much better than just trying to prove him wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for Tinman:  A tiny rotating loop of conductor rotating in the plane perpendicular to the bar magnet and crossing its midpoint will still have electric current induced in it, despite that a ferromagnetic object does not experience any axial force there.  A Hall sensor that has its sensing face perpendicular to the magnetization axis of the bar magnet will detect a B field there, too.

You are confusing the force of attraction with magnetic flux density B.  They are not the same!
Force of attraction is related to the gradient of the B field - not its magnitude.

P.S.
There is a point on the bar magnet's crossection, where the flux inside a magnet is equal but opposite to the parallel flux outside of the magnet.
It is very near the boundary condition - the surface of the magnet.  This oppositional equality has a radial relationship, though - not axial (between poles).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 01:44:37 PM
Unless I am terribly mistaken you describe just as in my drawings, the Hall sensor being face flat against the side of the magnet.  Unless you've got a really long magnet, the only place where the flux perpendicular to the magnet and therefore through the Hall sensor falls to zero is half way between the north and south poles.  "Nearly constant" is not "nearly enough" to make the perpendicular component fall to zero.  Rotating the Hall sensor so that it is sensitive to flux density  parallel to the magnet changes things a lot.  There with a long magnet the parallel flux density can be relatively constant over significant distances.

Yes, MarkE, you seem to be terribly mistaken, since my entire set of hypotheses has to do with what I explicitly stated several times, including in the post to which you are replying here: The Hall sensor plane , or face, if you like, is PERPENDICULAR to the long axis of the magnet! Not "flat against the side of the magnet!"

Quote from: ME
5)So a Hall sensor held with its plane at right angles to the magnet's long axis, and scanned along the length of the magnet, would read very differently in the two cases. Right?

6)If the "peanut waist" picture is true, the sensor being held at right angles and scanned along the magnet will experience a changing angle of the field as the field dips toward the "Bloch wall" waist, and then an also changing angle as the field dips up out of the equator on the other side. This will cause changing readings as the sensor is scanned past the "Bloch wall equator".  Right?

7)But in the conventional case, with the field lines strictly parallel to the long axis except near the end poles, the sensor will experience the field lines straight through the plane of the sensor, and thus the sensor's reading will remain constant, and _at the maximum value_  as it is scanned along the magnet's long axis. Right?

Quote from: ME
Think about that again, please. The question referred to a Hall sensor whose plane is perpendicular to the long axis of the magnet.

Hence, if the field lines are parallel to the long axis of the magnet, as in the conventional view, the flux through the PERPENDICULAR PLANE of the Hall sensor will be nearly constant and will not change in polarity ("arrow direction") over a considerable span in the central region of the magnet. On the other hand, if the "peanut waist" picture is true, then there will be considerable change in the flux through the plane of the Hall sensor held PERPENDICULAR to the long axis of the magnet.
In fact, if one is careful and strives to maintain the Hall sensor plane AT RIGHT ANGLES to the imagined "field lines" from pole to pole, including around the curling portions and onto the pole faces, a nearly constant output (translating to field strength or flux) will be maintained throughout. This latter is of course somewhat dependent on the aspect ratio (length:width) of the magnet, since a broader pole face will have less concentration of flux.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB_xNARuJaA    But whatever, dude.

Long axis of magnet goes like this:   N--------------------------------------------------S
Perpendicular plane of Hall sensor scanning: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hall sensor is held at RIGHT ANGLES, that is PERPENDICULAR, to the long axis of the magnet, as I have now stated about a dozen times.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 01:54:03 PM
Yes, it is wrong when applied to the shape of magnetic flux lines.

...but he is not even referring to the shape of magnetic flux lines but to the force of attraction on some ferromagnetic blob in the vicinity of a magnet which he has felt with his fingers.  Such force really dips in the midpoint of a bar magnet, so it is no wonder that he came to the fig 8 conclusion.
Look, he is talking about a "null zone" between poles and a lack of attraction force to a ferromagnetic blob there, he is not talking about magnetic flux density B there. He is conflating the two concepts.  The same mistake over and over...

MileHigh, you are advanced enough to point out where his mistake comes from.  This is much better than just trying to prove him wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for Tinman:  A tiny rotating loop of conductor rotating in the plane perpendicular to the bar magnet and crossing its midpoint will still have electric current induced in it, despite that a ferromagnetic object does not experience any axial force there.  A Hall sensor that has its sensing face perpendicular to the magnetization axis of the bar magnet will detect a B field there, too.

You are confusing the force of attraction with magnetic flux density B.  They are not the same!
Force of attraction is related to the gradient of the B field - not its magnitude.

P.S.
There is a point on the bar magnet's crossection, where the flux inside a magnet is equal but opposite to the parallel flux outside of the magnet.
It is very near the boundary condition - the surface of the magnet.  This oppositional equality has a radial relationship, though - not axial (between poles).

Highlighted for emphasis. Yes, even though a ferromagnetic "blob" or probe here will experience equal forces in both directions, hence will "feel like" a no-force situation, the flux still exists and can still do work by inducing current in a moving conductor just as we expect it to nearer the poles. 

Take the bar magnet and bend it around into a C-shape or a nearly full circle. What magic is this! You can still find your "force neutral" position between the poles with a ferromagnetic probe particle or reed switch, of course. But also of course you will be able to do work by spinning a coil of wire in the same position as your "forceless" probe or non-acting reed switch: See "electric motor" in WIKI.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 02:35:36 PM
Yes, it is wrong when applied to the shape of magnetic flux lines.

...but he is not even referring to the shape of magnetic flux lines but to the force of attraction on some ferromagnetic blob in the vicinity of a magnet which he has felt with his fingers.  Such force really dips in the midpoint of a bar magnet, so it is no wonder that he came to the fig 8 conclusion.
Look, he is talking about a "null zone" between poles and a lack of attraction force to a ferromagnetic blob there, he is not talking about magnetic flux density B there. He is conflating the two concepts.  The same mistake over and over...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are confusing the force of attraction with magnetic flux density B.  They are not the same!
Force of attraction is related to the gradient of the B field - not its magnitude.

condition - the surface of the magnet.  This oppositional equality has a radial relationship, though - not axial (between poles).
I am not makeing the same mistake over and over again,i am,and have always been refering to magnetic field strength/polarity,and the shape that this field of strength and polarity is.The flux at this mid region that is the null point is a mixture of two sepperate flux form's,and they cancel one another out.
I can asure you that the figure 8/peanut shape is the shape that resembles the magnetic field area that is of a higher % of one polarity than the other.This is the magnetic field area that can do work when in motion,or act upon a magnetically active substance. This is the null zone,and is clear and apparent in any test that requires a magnetic field to do work or induce flux into a feromagnetic material.

This(like electrical flow) can be shown with water,pipes and pressure differential. And this very same test will show why a hall sensor will show the same reading across the magnet from pole to pole when used as TK showed on his video-although that seems to be in conflict with what Mark said-maybe just a misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 02:43:54 PM
Highlighted for emphasis. Yes, even though a ferromagnetic "blob" or probe here will experience equal forces in both directions, hence will "feel like" a no-force situation, the flux still exists and can still do work by inducing current in a moving conductor just as we expect it to nearer the poles. 

Take the bar magnet and bend it around into a C-shape or a nearly full circle. What magic is this! You can still find your "force neutral" position between the poles with a ferromagnetic probe particle or reed switch, of course. But also of course you will be able to do work by spinning a coil of wire in the same position as your "forceless" probe or non-acting reed switch: See "electric motor" in  WIKI.
Please feel free to show me an inductor producing a current when the mid point(between the dipole)of a magnet is passed across that inductor.
Quote: But also of course you will be able to do work by spinning a coil of wire in the same position as your "forceless" probe or non-acting reed switch: See "electric motor" in  WIKI

Yes,but now you are introducing two more magnetic fields into the system,and have opposites attracting.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 02:53:47 PM
There is one caveat here that I think Itsu has stumbled upon.

When a cylindrical bar magnet is mapped by a Hall sensor whose face is perpendicular to the cylinder's axis (which is also the magnetization axis) and scanned along the radius of the cylinder that crosses its axial midpoint, then this sensor would indicate the B magnetic field in the opposite direction outside the magnet than inside the magnet (if it could penetrate inside the magnet).

This means that at one point somewhere along this radius, the Hall sensor would indicate zero.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 02:54:18 PM
Yes, MarkE, you seem to be terribly mistaken, since my entire set of hypotheses has to do with what I explicitly stated several times, including in the post to which you are replying here: The Hall sensor plane , or face, if you like, is PERPENDICULAR to the long axis of the magnet! Not "flat against the side of the magnet!"

Hence, if the field lines are parallel to the long axis of the magnet, as in the conventional view, the flux through the PERPENDICULAR PLANE of the Hall sensor will be nearly constant and will not change in polarity ("arrow direction") over a considerable span in the central region of the magnet. On the other hand, if the "peanut waist" picture is true, then there will be considerable change in the flux through the plane of the Hall sensor held PERPENDICULAR to the long axis of the magnet.
In fact, if one is careful and strives to maintain the Hall sensor plane AT RIGHT ANGLES to the imagined "field lines" from pole to pole, including around the curling portions and onto the pole faces, a nearly constant output (translating to field strength or flux) will be maintained throughout. This latter is of course somewhat dependent on the aspect ratio (length:width) of the magnet, since a broader pole face will have less concentration of flux.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB_xNARuJaA    But whatever, dude.

Long axis of magnet goes like this:   N--------------------------------------------------S
Perpendicular plane of Hall sensor scanning: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hall sensor is held at RIGHT ANGLES, that is PERPENDICULAR, to the long axis of the magnet, as I have now stated about a dozen times.
Can you run the test with the hall sensor face flat on the magnet as Mark says to TK?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 03:05:07 PM
Unless I am terribly mistaken you describe just as in my drawings, the Hall sensor being face flat against the side of the magnet.  Unless you've got a really long magnet, the only place where the flux perpendicular to the magnet and therefore through the Hall sensor falls to zero is half way between the north and south poles. 
OK,who's test method is correct? your's or TK's,as TK has the hall sensor at right angles to the plane of the magnet,and you say face flat on the magnet ???
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 03:12:25 PM
Yes, MarkE, you seem to be terribly mistaken, since my entire set of hypotheses has to do with what I explicitly stated several times, including in the post to which you are replying here: The Hall sensor plane , or face, if you like, is PERPENDICULAR to the long axis of the magnet! Not "flat against the side of the magnet!"
That resolves that discrepancy.  However I think that if one wants to know whether flux turns back into the magnet half way along, the direct way to measure that is with the face of the sensor right up against the magnet.  If flux at a detectable density curls back into the magnet then that orientation will detect it.  Perpendicular as you propose should show a double camel hump distribution.
Quote

Hence, if the field lines are parallel to the long axis of the magnet, as in the conventional view, the flux through the PERPENDICULAR PLANE of the Hall sensor will be nearly constant and will not change in polarity ("arrow direction") over a considerable span in the central region of the magnet. On the other hand, if the "peanut waist" picture is true, then there will be considerable change in the flux through the plane of the Hall sensor held PERPENDICULAR to the long axis of the magnet.
Perpendicular you should see a double camel hump or  "peanut" waist because near each pole much of the flux is curled towards the pole face, and near the middle the flux density is lower overall.
Quote
In fact, if one is careful and strives to maintain the Hall sensor plane AT RIGHT ANGLES to the imagined "field lines" from pole to pole, including around the curling portions and onto the pole faces, a nearly constant output (translating to field strength or flux) will be maintained throughout. This latter is of course somewhat dependent on the aspect ratio (length:width) of the magnet, since a broader pole face will have less concentration of flux.
I quite agree that the magnet aspect ratio is a significant factor to the aspect ratio of the camel humps.
Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB_xNARuJaA    But whatever, dude.

Long axis of magnet goes like this:   N--------------------------------------------------S
Perpendicular plane of Hall sensor scanning: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hall sensor is held at RIGHT ANGLES, that is PERPENDICULAR, to the long axis of the magnet, as I have now stated about a dozen times.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 03:25:17 PM
I am not makeing the same mistake over and over again,i am,and have always been refering to magnetic field strength/polarity,and the shape that this field of strength and polarity is.The flux at this mid region that is the null point is a mixture of two sepperate flux form's,and they cancel one another out.
As is the flux at any slice.  There is nothing special about the vector addition of the left 1/100th of the magnet with the right 99/100ths of the magnet.  The net field is the vector sum of all the infinitesimal slices of the magnet.  Consider what the fields would look like if we took five or fifty or five hundred magnets all aligned, but first well spaced from each other and then brought together in different groupings.
Quote
I can asure you that the figure 8/peanut shape is the shape that resembles the magnetic field area that is of a higher % of one polarity than the other.This is the magnetic field area that can do work when in motion,or act upon a magnetically active substance. This is the null zone,and is clear and apparent in any test that requires a magnetic field to do work or induce flux into a feromagnetic material.

This(like electrical flow) can be shown with water,pipes and pressure differential. And this very same test will show why a hall sensor will show the same reading across the magnet from pole to pole when used as TK showed on his video-although that seems to be in conflict with what Mark said-maybe just a misunderstanding.
Again it looks like you are mixing up:  flux, flux density, and in the case of induction the vector orientation of the flux.
Quote
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 03:31:17 PM
OK,who's test method is correct? your's or TK's,as TK has the hall sensor at right angles to the plane of the magnet,and you say face flat on the magnet ???
It all depends on what you want to find out.  I propose placing the sensor flat up against the magnet to show what flux density is curing in or out of the magnet at any point along the dipole axis.  The perpendicular test measures flux density parallel to the dipole axis.  If the dipole is very long then the "camel humps" in that flux density will be pretty low and the flux density along most of the magnet will be relatively constant.  As the dipole gets shorter relative to the width and height of its faces the "camel humps" in the flux density become more pronounced.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 10, 2015, 04:17:46 PM
The field at the center of a dipole is a mixture of two different forces that are equal in strength and opposite in direction,and the net resultant force is 0.
You are referring to the field outside the magnet, correct?

If so, then that is not a correct statement. The field at the center (and outside) of the dipole is parallel to the dipole and does not change direction. The flux density outside the magnet at the center is however weaker compared to the ends. But if you were able to insert your Hall probe into the middle of the magnet material at the center, you would find the flux density just as high, if not higher than what you might measure at either end of the magnet. Agreed?

So again, when you swipe a coil near either end of a magnet, you induce a strong voltage in the coil. When you swipe the same coil across the center of the same magnet, you induce little to no voltage in the coil. Is that because there is no field or flux at the center? No. It is because you are inducing just as much positive voltage as negative voltage, and the two cancel.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 10, 2015, 04:26:02 PM



   Tinman,
             you're goin' to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat. TheoriaApophasis  will be
 able to assist you, that's a given!
     Good luck,John.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 04:29:13 PM
OK,who's test method is correct? your's or TK's,as TK has the hall sensor at right angles to the plane of the magnet,and you say face flat on the magnet ???
I depends what you want to find out.

If you want to map the magnitude absolute magnetic flux density then use Method #3 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).
If you want to map the magnitude of component of flux density that is perpendicular to the magnetization axis of the magnet then use Method #1 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).
If you want to map the magnitude of the attraction force then use Method #6 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).

If you want to disprove that the map of the magnitude of the magnetic flux density has a shape of figure 8, then use a Method #1 or #2 or #3 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).

If you want to prove that the map of the magnitude of attraction force has a  shape of the figure 8, then use Method #4 or #5 (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431967/#msg431967).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 10, 2015, 04:30:03 PM
That resolves that discrepancy.  However I think that if one wants to know whether flux turns back into the magnet half way along, the direct way to measure that is with the face of the sensor right up against the magnet.  If flux at a detectable density curls back into the magnet then that orientation will detect it.
Agreed, however I think tinman is saying that even with that orientation of the sensor, you will measure 0 net flux because the N-curl + the S-curl are opposite at the center and will cancel in the sensor.

tinman may correct me if I interpreted him incorrectly.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 04:50:34 PM
The field at the center (and outside) of the dipole is parallel to the dipole
Correct

and does not change direction.
Wrong.
The flux in the radial center of a cylindrical bar magnet has an opposite direction to the flux outside of the magnet.
Somewhere along the radius of the magnet, these two fluxes must sum to zero by simple vector addition.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 10, 2015, 05:45:57 PM
Wrong.
The flux in the radial center of a cylindrical bar magnet has an opposite direction to the flux outside of the magnet.
Somewhere along the radius of the magnet, these two fluxes must sum to zero by simple vector addition.
I specified the field outside the magnet. Perhaps you missed that important piece of information?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 10, 2015, 05:49:54 PM
@Poynt99
Quote
If so, then that is not a correct statement. The field at the center (and outside) of the dipole is parallel to the dipole and does not change direction. The flux density outside the magnet at the center is however weaker compared to the ends. But if you were able to insert your Hall probe into the middle of the magnet material at the center, you would find the flux density just as high, if not higher than what you might measure at either end of the magnet. Agreed?


Some interesting experiments this morning with the hall probe, more like confusing,lol.
First I would like to say when taking measurements my intent is not to prove anything one way or another but to understand what I see.


1)First my thinking was that if Mark is correct then logically I should be able to point the hall sensor face at the North pole and rotate the sensor one way or the other to "follow" the maximum field density of a given polarity. That is I pretend to follow a "loop" from the N to S pole and if there is a max value of constant polarity it should show me the way...in fact it does and Mark is right. I should note I am not following a loop I am trying to maintain a max reading of same polarity within any given space which happens to follow what appears to be a loop from pole to pole.


2)However, and this is a big however if I start with the hall face pointing towards the N pole and follow the magnet contour around the corner to the side the max reading and polarity is also maintained, the same hall face is always facing inwards towards the magnet. In fact I can follow a line from the N pole center around the edge along the side of the magnet and the reading is constant at max value and same polarity until a very small region near the side/center of the magnet at which point it reverses. The polarity remains constant on both ends/sides of the magnet as I move away from it as does the zero value at the center. This measure suggest there are no loops but straight lines acting away from the magnet center outwards in all directions not unlike rays from the Sun. The measures suggest two half spheres of different polarity with a zero boundary condition between the two. No loops but lines moving away from the magnet center in all directions.


Now measure (1 )suggests Mark is correct and it would seem I can follow imaginary lines looping from pole to pole by rotating the sensor. However measure (2) with the hall face always pointing towards a point in the center of the magnet suggests there are no loops but lines, two half spheres of differing polarity acting outwards in all directions.


The confusion would seem to lie in the fact that in between the two planes of the poles the sensor shows a constant max value and polarity if the sensor face is pointing in the same direction as the poles N-S axis. However if sensor is always facing towards the magnet center we see two half spheres of different polarity.
Another note, just above or below the side center region the hall sensor can be rotated 90 deg and the value and polarity do not change in any way, very strange.


This was unexpected and I will leave it with everyone here to make sense of it.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 06:15:34 PM
Please feel free to show me an inductor producing a current when the mid point(between the dipole)of a magnet is passed across that inductor.
Quote: But also of course you will be able to do work by spinning a coil of wire in the same position as your "forceless" probe or non-acting reed switch: See "electric motor" in  WIKI

Yes,but now you are introducing two more magnetic fields into the system,and have opposites attracting.

Simply by bending a bar magnet into a C-shape I have introduced NO new magnetic fields! I have simply redirected the flux so that instead of "flowing" along the long axis of the bar magnet from pole to pole,it is now flowing from pole to pole out in a space away from the body of the magnet. This takes the flux that formerly was surrounding the bar magnet and concentrates it in the region between the poles or pole pieces. It is the _same flux_ that formerly flowed along the sides of the magnet from pole to pole. The opposites attract just as they did in the straight magnet. The center region between the poles has just been moved out to the side, and instead of being spread around the body of the magnet it is now concentrated mostly to the area defined by the width of the poles or pole pieces. Just as when you hold a hose or water nozzle perfectly vertical, the water flows down all around the outside of the nozzle and would have a hard time driving a turbine wheel, but if you bend the nozzle over, now the water flows in a stream away from the hose body, making it easier to drive a water wheel. Nothing new has been introduced, the position of the flow (water) or magnetic flux (magnet) has just been relocated away from the magnet body to make it easier to use.  Now I think you are really grasping at straws.

The Hall sensor test in my video definitely shows that there is a flux at the midpoint of the magnet, and since it is giving almost the same reading there as on the pole itself, it shows that the flux is going mostly straight through the plane of the sensor, which is held perpendicular to the long axis of the magnet. Please refer to my "7 questions". This _fact_, which can be observed in my video, shows the same thing that a moving wire would show in the same position. Recall that current is induced in a wire that "cuts" across magnetic field lines. This means at the exact center region of the magnet, the wire would have to be moving radially towards and away from the body of the magnet to "cut" the field lines perpendicularly. This is kind of hard to arrange experimentally with actual straight magnets and wires, but the Hall sensor shows the same thing: see "hall effect" in your favorite reference to see how the Hall voltage is produced. Also it is demonstrated by 2-piece homopolar dynamos, where a strong current is produced by moving a conductor, at right angles to the flux, through the midpoint of the field between the poles of a U or C shaped magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 10, 2015, 06:18:39 PM
I think a few simple drawings would aid in people's descriptions from time to time.

Anyway, I can see that Tinman is close to getting a better understanding.  I note it looks like he has a notion of 'north flux' and 'south flux' originating at each pole and where they meet half way they 'cancel each other out' and then there is no 'useful field' there.

NoBull mentioned the field gradient which is very important.  A perfectly straight set of magnetic field lines has no gradient and therefore no net pull in any direction on a piece of ferrous metal.  Although it will still line up the metal in the field like an iron filing.  That's a clue for Tinman right there.  There is no pull in either direction but there is a torque on the metal piece half-way between the poles if it is rectangular in shape.   Same thing for the reed switch.  There is torque on the reed switch at the half-way point if it is not lined up with the magnetic field.  You just don't feel it when you are handling the reed switch which is connected to wires, etc.  Likewise a rotating loop of wire at the half-way point will generate EMF as long as it cuts the field lines.

The gradient in simple terms just means that the magnetic field is stronger on one side of ferrous object than the other side.  That will then 'suck you into the pole.'  No field strength gradient then no 'sucking.'  The half-way point between poles has an infinitesimally thin plane of zero gradient.  On either side of the plane the gradient is extremely low and therefore it's very difficult to feel any attraction there with your hands.

Tinman deserves tons of credit because he wants to defend his points and actually debate.  That can lead to learning.  Meanwhile Chris/EMJunkie played an aloof character and as time went on I think he started to realize how little he really knew and he had to try to bluff his way through.  That's not the way to learn about this stuff.  It's a classic case of putting on blinders.

So much of a tempest in a teapot over the same old drawing of the magnetic field around a bar magnet that we have all seen since we were children.  But it's actually a good exercise because the more you learn and understand the more your mind is able to 'cut through the crap' when you look at somebody's free energy proposition, as an example.

And it's interesting how some people will intentionally stick to their bad ways just the same.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 06:32:16 PM
@Poynt99

Some interesting experiments this morning with the hall probe, more like confusing,lol.
First I would like to say when taking measurements my intent is not to prove anything one way or another but to understand what I see.


1)First my thinking was that if Mark is correct then logically I should be able to point the hall sensor face at the North pole and rotate the sensor one way or the other to "follow" the maximum field density of a given polarity. That is I pretend to follow a "loop" from the N to S pole and if there is a max value of constant polarity it should show me the way...in fact it does and Mark is right. I should note I am not following a loop I am trying to maintain a max reading of same polarity within any given space which happens to follow what appears to be a loop from pole to pole.


2)However, and this is a big however if I start with the hall face pointing towards the N pole and follow the magnet contour around the corner to the side the max reading and polarity is also maintained, the same hall face is always facing inwards towards the magnet. In fact I can follow a line from the N pole center around the edge along the side of the magnet and the reading is constant at max value and same polarity until a very small region near the side/center of the magnet at which point it reverses. The polarity remains constant on both ends/sides of the magnet as I move away from it as does the zero value at the center. This measure suggest there are no loops but straight lines acting away from the magnet center outwards in all directions not unlike rays from the Sun. The measures suggest two half spheres of different polarity with a zero boundary condition between the two. No loops but lines moving away from the magnet center in all directions.


Now measure (1 )suggests Mark is correct and it would seem I can follow imaginary lines looping from pole to pole by rotating the sensor. However measure (2) with the hall face always pointing towards a point in the center of the magnet suggests there are no loops but lines, two half spheres of differing polarity acting outwards in all directions.


The confusion would seem to lie in the fact that in between the two planes of the poles the sensor shows a constant max value and polarity if the sensor face is pointing in the same direction as the poles N-S axis. However if sensor is always facing towards the magnet center we see two half spheres of different polarity.


This was unexpected and I will leave it with everyone here to make sense of it.


AC

I think you are misinterpreting what you see in Case 2.  Look at the conventional picture of the field lines. As you slide the Hall sensor along the side of the magnet with the face parallel to the magnet's long axis, the sensor experiences changing directions of the flux and at the midpoint the flux is mostly _parallel_ to the plane of the sensor: That is, no flux or very little goes through the plane of the sensor at right angles to it, so the sensor reads minimum flux here. (In the case of my particular sensor, the voltage output will be the midpoint of the supply voltage or about 2.55 volts, meaning no flux through the sensor plane.) As you continue to slide along towards the pole, the flux begins to curl back towards the pole so more and more of it goes through the plane of the sensor. When you started, the "arrow" of the flux goes through the sensor in one direction. As you progress along, the flux becomes more and more parallel so less and less goes through the plane of the sensor. Past the midpoint the flux begins to curl back and so more and more goes through the plane of the sensor, with the "arrow" now in the opposite direction wrt the sensor. When you are on the pole itself, and have turned the corner and rotated the sensor so that the plane is now flat to the pole, you get the maximum flux reading.

What is the part number of your sensor? Is it a true linear ratiometric sensor like I am using, or is it a "switch" type? It would be nice to see the data sheet for your sensor. I've already provided the data sheet for my sensor in a previous post.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 06:38:29 PM
I specified the field outside the magnet. Perhaps you missed that important piece of information?
If you meant to compare the direction of the flux lines on the outside to the outside, then indeed I missed it.
Of course the direction of the flux lines on the outside compared to other lines on the outside does not reverse.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: itsu on January 10, 2015, 06:49:55 PM
There is one caveat here that I think Itsu has stumbled upon.

When a cylindrical bar magnet is mapped by a Hall sensor whose face is perpendicular to the cylinder's axis (which is also the magnetization axis) and scanned along the radius of the cylinder that crosses its axial midpoint, then this sensor would indicate the B magnetic field in the opposite direction outside the magnet than inside the magnet (if it could penetrate inside the magnet).

This means that at one point somewhere along this radius, the Hall sensor would indicate zero.

to stop any confusion on what i did and what i used, here a repeat of that action on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm718ND5WDo&feature=youtu.be


Sorry for mixing up the north south of the magnets all the time, North is on the left,   south on the right


Regards itsu
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 10, 2015, 07:09:03 PM
@TK
I am using a linear ratiometric sensor, it shows a signal which varies with field strength and when facing the N pole it shows a N polarity and when rotated 90 Deg it shows zero polarity and when rotated another 90 Deg it shows a polarity reversal to S pole. It does everything it is supposed to do when I tested it as it should.


The fact remains, just above and below the magnet center line along the side the sensor can be rotated 90 Deg with no change in field strength nor polarity. This only occurs in a region approximately 1/4 of the magnet diameter away from the side above and below the center line. I would suggest you do the same measurement and report your findings here.


I am measuring a 1" dia x 1" N42 neo magnet.


AC

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 10, 2015, 07:29:35 PM
If you meant to compare the direction of the flux lines on the outside to the outside, then indeed I missed it.
Of course the direction of the flux lines on the outside compared to other lines on the outside does not reverse.
;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 10, 2015, 07:30:17 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGytW_C6hR8&list=PL626A2BF1D244B8F6&index=2


  These are electromagnets I would assume.  So they would take stuff and magnetize it when they are on and when they are shut off the field collapsing would generate voltage.  The stuff that gets magnetized permanently would not however add to the voltage produced by the collapsing magnetic field of the electromagnet because well it's field is not collapsing.   The permanent magnet  now has the potential to demagnetize at another location.   Unfortunately it will take input of energy to collapse the magnetic field at location b.   You could heat it above it's curie point using sunlight or waste heat or an impact.  My point is that the whole process of storing energy in a magnetic field is really inefficient.   A resonant electrical system uses this shuffling of energy back and forth between magnetic and electrical fields to accumulate power form a low power scource like radio waves or a small battery.  The powerful discharge of the accumulated energy in a brief interval appears majical.  There is however no majic.   I believe Moray was tuning in some high frequency and simply redshifting it to low frequency.  He was working with crystals which are able to respond to very small wavelength signals.  The energy of a wave increases with frequency at any given intensity.  Store it in a resonant electrical device and light up bulbs to awe the herd.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 10, 2015, 07:31:24 PM
AC,

Are you certain your sensor isn't just saturating and that's why there is no change?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 10, 2015, 07:39:30 PM
to stop any confusion on what i did and what i used, here a repeat of that action on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm718ND5WDo&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm718ND5WDo&feature=youtu.be)


Sorry for mixing up the north south of the magnets all the time, North is on the left,   south on the right


Regards itsu

Itsu:

If you watch your clip at the end, the dip when you are doing the low scan is not replicated when you do the high scan.  On the high scan the 'dip' now becomes the peak.  So you can say it's 'opposite.'

That all makes sense relative to the standard field pattern.  The dip at the bottom is due to the flux density decreasing at the half-way point.  When you do the high scan, the probe is "entering the bubble" and then "exiting the bubble" with respect to the magnetic field there.  So you get a peak at the center of the bubble because at that height above the magnet you are in the densest flux stream in the middle.

Big Ben is still chiming!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 10, 2015, 07:42:20 PM
@Itsu
Quote
to stop any confusion on what i did and what i used, here a repeat of that action on video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm718ND5WDo&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm718ND5WDo&feature=youtu.be)Sorry for mixing up the north south of the magnets all the time, North is on the left,   south on the right


I was using the same techniques taking a measure along the magnet side getting the same results. As well when rotating the probe on each end or pole I produced the same results as you have.


Now if you reduce the number of magnets so the width is near the same as the height then always point the same sensor face at the center of the stack you will see the field resembles two half spheres of opposite polarity. A cylinder magnet of equal diameter/height will produce better results.


This would seem to contradict the looped flux lines model in my opinion and there is a point above and below the magnet center where the sensor can be rotated 90 degrees with no change in magnitude nor polarity which raises many questions.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 07:58:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGytW_C6hR8&list=PL626A2BF1D244B8F6&index=2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGytW_C6hR8&list=PL626A2BF1D244B8F6&index=2)


  These are electromagnets I would assume.  So they would take stuff and magnetize it when they are on and when they are shut off the field collapsing would generate voltage.  The stuff that gets magnetized permanently would not however add to the voltage produced by the collapsing magnetic field of the electromagnet because well it's field is not collapsing.   The permanent magnet  now has the potential to demagnetize at another location.   Unfortunately it will take input of energy to collapse the magnetic field at location b.   You could heat it above it's curie point using sunlight or waste heat or an impact.  My point is that the whole process of storing energy in a magnetic field is really inefficient.   A resonant electrical system uses this shuffling of energy back and forth between magnetic and electrical fields to accumulate power form a low power scource like radio waves or a small battery.  The powerful discharge of the accumulated energy in a brief interval appears majical.  There is however no majic.   I believe Moray was tuning in some high frequency and simply redshifting it to low frequency.  He was working with crystals which are able to respond to very small wavelength signals.  The energy of a wave increases with frequency at any given intensity.  Store it in a resonant electrical device and light up bulbs to awe the herd.
I agree with you except for the part I've highlighted. Let's rephrase it so we can agree 100 percent: Storing energy by magnetizing  _permanent magnets_ and attempting to recover that stored energy is inefficient. On the other hand, storing and recovering _mechanical_ energy by using the attractive and repulsive forces associated with PMs, can be very efficient (I think most every pulse motor builder knows that the "cogging" of magnets/cores in relative motion is nearly energy-neutral, that is, an efficient storage and recovery of mechanical energy).
 
But we see very efficient storage and recovery of electrical energy from magnetic fields every day, all the time. Your computer would not operate, were it otherwise. Nor would radios or many other devices we use every day. Look at the definition of "Q"... the inefficiency comes from losses in a circuit's resistive elements and unintended radiation of power, not from storage and recovery in the magnetic field itself.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 08:03:00 PM
@Itsu

I was using the same techniques taking a measure along the magnet side getting the same results. As well when rotating the probe on each end or pole I produced the same results as you have.


Now if you reduce the number of magnets so the width is near the same as the height then always point the same sensor face at the center of the stack you will see the field resembles two half spheres of opposite polarity. A cylinder magnet of equal diameter/height will produce better results.


The perpendicular scan refutes this interpretation.

Quote
This would seem to contradict the looped flux lines model in my opinion and there is a point above and below the magnet center where the sensor can be rotated 90 degrees with no change in magnitude nor polarity which raises many questions.


AC

Yes... like how can engineers who "believe" in the conventional picture possibly actually design things that work, if their beliefs are so wrong? 
 ;)
That particular example gives no new information, if you actually know how the Hall sensor responds to orientation of flux lines and flux density.


Again, what is the part number of your Hall sensor, and can you provide a data sheet for it?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 10, 2015, 08:05:07 PM



 Koala,
        You've got an inventive sort of mind. Is there any way you could arrange
your magnets to give a "figure of eight" to satisfy Tinman's aspirations?
             John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 10, 2015, 08:22:07 PM
@Poynt99
Quote
Are you certain your sensor isn't just saturating and that's why there is no change?


There lies the question, It would seem like it is however once the area in between pole planes is crossed the polarity and measure remain constant when the sensor axis is aligned with the magnet NS axis as Itsu has shown.
Then when the the sensor axis is perpendicular to the magnet NS axis (sensor facing side of magnet) there is another plane extending from the center outward again the measure and polarity remain constant.


At the intersection of the two planes where the sensor can see a value of +1 parallel to the NS axis and a value of +1 perpendicular to the NS axis it can rotate 90 degrees with no change in the values. The values are not max values so I question if saturation is the cause. The whole thing is questionable because sensor stability along the axis of rotation is extremely sensitive and needs to be verified by someone else here.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 10, 2015, 08:27:55 PM
@TK
Quote
Again, what is the part number of your Hall sensor, and can you provide a data sheet for it?


I can barely see the damn sensor let alone the black writing on the black body printed on the atomic scale, lol. I tried and using my magnifier but it was still a no go, I'm fairly certain it was an allegro ratiometric hall sensor because I did not want a switch I wanted a ratiometric sensor when I ordered them a couple years ago. I order them for doing exactly this kind of work.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 09:12:49 PM


 Koala,
        You've got an inventive sort of mind. Is there any way you could arrange
your magnets to give a "figure of eight" to satisfy Tinman's aspirations?
             John.

I don't know, perhaps by gluing two like pole faces together, or with an intervening bit of iron or steel, maybe.
But Tinman isn't exactly "wrong" in his picture either, as has been explained by several people in the thread up above.

My demonstration of the mapping with the plane of the Hall sensor parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack will be viewable in a few minutes; it's being rendered and will be uploaded to YT shortly.

@AC: The labelling on my A3503 sensors is visible in the closeup image in my latest video. Typically only the last three digits of the part number are shown on the small Allegro packages. So you see "503" in the top row, and a date and/or mfg. location code in the bottom row of digits.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: itsu on January 10, 2015, 09:28:03 PM
Itsu:

If you watch your clip at the end, the dip when you are doing the low scan is not replicated when you do the high scan.  On the high scan the 'dip' now becomes the peak.  So you can say it's 'opposite.'

That all makes sense relative to the standard field pattern.  The dip at the bottom is due to the flux density decreasing at the half-way point.  When you do the high scan, the probe is "entering the bubble" and then "exiting the bubble" with respect to the magnetic field there.  So you get a peak at the center of the bubble because at that height above the magnet you are in the densest flux stream in the middle.

Big Ben is still chiming!

MileHigh


I agree, it looks like that, but thats probably because my hasty video job on the upper flux, in reality its different, see this new short video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShIcIsvBS4&feature=youtu.be


Regards Itsu
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 10, 2015, 09:34:15 PM
@TK
I downloaded a magnifier app for my smartphone and got the part number.


Allegro A1302, Continuous-Time Ratiometric Linear Hall Effect Sensor.
www.allegromicro.com/~/media/Files/.../A1301-2-Datasheet.ashx (http://www.allegromicro.com/~/media/Files/.../A1301-2-Datasheet.ashx)[/font][/size]


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 10, 2015, 09:51:55 PM
Storing energy by magnetizing  _permanent magnets_ and attempting to recover that stored energy is inefficient.
How would you do it, anyway?

Maybe cut a bar magnet along its axis in half while it is in an air solenoid?

xxxxxxxxxxx
   N-------S
   N-------S
ooooooooo

The two halves would counterrotate along their midpoint and the end result would be a pair of magnets pointing like this

xxxxxxxxxxx
   N-------S
   S-------N
ooooooooo

This pair of magnets would produce zero net flux inside the solenoid
...so the solenoid would experience large dΦ/dt during this counterrotation which would result in large induction according to Mr. Faraday.

Could this process be reversed by energizing the solenoid from outside?


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 10, 2015, 09:52:08 PM
Itsu:

If you watch your clip at the end, the dip when you are doing the low scan is not replicated when you do the high scan.  On the high scan the 'dip' now becomes the peak.  So you can say it's 'opposite.'

That all makes sense relative to the standard field pattern.  The dip at the bottom is due to the flux density decreasing at the half-way point.  When you do the high scan, the probe is "entering the bubble" and then "exiting the bubble" with respect to the magnetic field there.  So you get a peak at the center of the bubble because at that height above the magnet you are in the densest flux stream in the middle.

Big Ben is still chiming!

MileHigh
Not exactly. In the scan with the sensor at right angles to the long axis of the magnet stack, the "dip" and the "peak" are indicating exactly or pretty much the same flux density, just different directions wrt the sensor plane. Recall that the center, or zero baseline, of the scope trace is indicating _zero flux_ through the plane of the sensor, and positive deflection indicates flux in one direction wrt the sensor plane, and negative deflection indicates flux in the opposite direction. The difference between "peak" and "dip" only indicates the direction of the flux through the plane of the sensor. This difference is because the sensor is flipped 180 degrees from one scan to the other, so the flux passes through it in the opposite direction relative to the sensor orientation. The "peak" and the "dip" in Itsu's video are showing the point where the field lines are the most parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack and have the least density, just as shown in the conventional picture of the field lines. If the "peanut waist" picture were true the data would be very different than what Itsu has demonstrated. All of the above paragraph refers to the scans where the sensor is held at right angles to the long axis of the magnet stack.

When the sensor is held so that the plane is parallel to the long axis of the magnet, the sensor output goes to zero or rather the zero baseline of the scope trace, indicating _no flux through the sensor_ at the center of the stack. This means that the field lines are parallel to the plane of the sensor at that point, fully confirming the conventional view of the field lines. If the "peanut waist" view were correct, there would be a maximum reading (well above the baseline) just to one side of this null point and a minimum reading (well below the baseline) just on the other side. But this is not what happens: the maximum reading occurs at one pole, grading smoothly to zero at the center, and grading smoothly to the minimum reading at the other pole. Very different from what is predicted by the "peanut waist" or "Bloch wall" picture.  The above paragraph refers to the scans where the sensor is held with the plane parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack.

I think Itsu's demonstration might be more stable if he used the wide part of the magnet stack instead of the narrow part. You can see how difficult it is to hold manually the proper orientation of the Hall sensor, and deviating slightly from the centerline of the narrow face of the stack causes fluctuations in the reading from the sensor. This effect would probably be less if he scanned the wider face of the stack.

Itsu's demonstration appears to me to be reporting the identical picture of the field line direction and density that my own demonstrations provide, and is refuting the "peanut waist" picture and confirming the conventional picture of the direction and density of the field lines around the stack of magnets.


Part 2, the parallel scan of my magnet stack, will be viewable in a few minutes:
http://youtu.be/OTe4rNwrZKY (http://youtu.be/OTe4rNwrZKY)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe4rNwrZKY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe4rNwrZKY)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 10:47:27 PM
Agreed, however I think tinman is saying that even with that orientation of the sensor, you will measure 0 net flux because the N-curl + the S-curl are opposite at the center and will cancel in the sensor.

tinman may correct me if I interpreted him incorrectly.
Tinman keeps conflating flux and flux density.    Take 100 little disc magnets like TK has in his video.  Scan them as one long magnet and get TK's results.  Pull one a foot away and scan again and they will look like two separate magnets.  Do the same thing but separating 10/90, and get the same qualitative results.  So, yes the vectors add.  But there is nothing special about how they add at the center versus closer to the ends.  The vectors all add up anywhere along the magnet, and that fact does not hide something unique happening near the middle of the dipole.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 10:54:14 PM
I think you are misinterpreting what you see in Case 2.  Look at the conventional picture of the field lines. As you slide the Hall sensor along the side of the magnet with the face parallel to the magnet's long axis, the sensor experiences changing directions of the flux and at the midpoint the flux is mostly _parallel_ to the plane of the sensor: That is, no flux or very little goes through the plane of the sensor at right angles to it, so the sensor reads minimum flux here. (In the case of my particular sensor, the voltage output will be the midpoint of the supply voltage or about 2.55 volts, meaning no flux through the sensor plane.) As you continue to slide along towards the pole, the flux begins to curl back towards the pole so more and more of it goes through the plane of the sensor. When you started, the "arrow" of the flux goes through the sensor in one direction. As you progress along, the flux becomes more and more parallel so less and less goes through the plane of the sensor. Past the midpoint the flux begins to curl back and so more and more goes through the plane of the sensor, with the "arrow" now in the opposite direction wrt the sensor. When you are on the pole itself, and have turned the corner and rotated the sensor so that the plane is now flat to the pole, you get the maximum flux reading.
Exactamundo!
Quote

What is the part number of your sensor? Is it a true linear ratiometric sensor like I am using, or is it a "switch" type? It would be nice to see the data sheet for your sensor. I've already provided the data sheet for my sensor in a previous post.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 11:08:07 PM

I agree, it looks like that, but thats probably because my hasty video job on the upper flux, in reality its different, see this new short video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShIcIsvBS4&feature=youtu.be


Regards Itsu
Yes, and these esults should not be surprising.  The competing effects on flux density parallel to the dipole axis are the changing orientation of the field and the spreading of the field.  At the center of the magnet the orientation is all perpendicular to the sensor face, but the field has spread out giving the dip between the "camel humps".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 10, 2015, 11:25:52 PM
@TK
Here is an interesting graph. Hold the hall sensor stationary with the face pointing to the center of the magnet then rotate the magnet on its center from pole to pole. I'm not seeing loops here I'm seeing a spherical field. The N and S poles of the magnet are the top and bottom of what appears as a sine wave. If it were loops then when the sensor face was pointed at the side then the measure should be zero which it is not, only at the exact center is it zero.


TK you need Labview.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 10, 2015, 11:34:29 PM
TK:

I just watched part 2.  I really like those sensors that you purchased.  Those make reed switches a thing of the past for the projects I want to build.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 10, 2015, 11:37:48 PM
TK:

I just watched part 2.  I really like those sensors that you purchased.  Those make reed switches a thing of the past for the projects I want to build.

Bill
Bill when you do:  Buy A1324's they have much higher sensitivity of 5mV/G.  You might be able to find their predecessors the A1321 around cheap.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 10, 2015, 11:52:01 PM
You are referring to the field outside the magnet, correct?

If so, then that is not a correct statement. The field at the center (and outside) of the dipole is parallel to the dipole and does not change direction. The flux density outside the magnet at the center is however weaker compared to the ends. But if you were able to insert your Hall probe into the middle of the magnet material at the center, you would find the flux density just as high, if not higher than what you might measure at either end of the magnet. Agreed?
So again, when you swipe a coil near either end of a magnet, you induce a strong voltage in the coil. When you swipe the same coil across the center of the same magnet, you induce little to no voltage in the coil. Is that because there is no field or flux at the center? No. It is because you are inducing just as much positive voltage as negative voltage, and the two cancel.

Yes indeed.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 12:04:11 AM


The confusion would seem to lie in the fact that in between the two planes of the poles the sensor shows a constant max value and polarity if the sensor face is pointing in the same direction as the poles N-S axis. However if sensor is always facing towards the magnet center we see two half spheres of different polarity.Another note, just above or below the side center region the hall sensor can be rotated 90 deg and the value and polarity do not change in any way, very strange.


This was unexpected and I will leave it with everyone here to make sense of it.


AC
You mean something like the picture i posted some time back?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 11, 2015, 12:17:33 AM
@tinman
Quote
You mean something like the picture i posted some time back?


If we were to plot the "difference" between the center zero plane between the two poles and the looped conventional paths then yes I believe it very well may follow the line you have depicted. To be honest I never thought of that until I saw your diagram.


There are points where the parallel and perpendicular measures from the hall sensor appear equal within the field where the two planes intersect.


I should be able to add another sensor at 90 degrees and plot a second graph with labview. Then a third graph showing the difference between the two and follow the line.


AC


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 12:20:28 AM
This takes the flux that formerly was surrounding the bar magnet and concentrates it in the region between the poles or pole pieces. It is the _same flux_ that formerly flowed along the sides of the magnet from pole to pole. The opposites attract just as they did in the straight magnet. The center region between the poles has just been moved out to the side, and instead of being spread around the body of the magnet it is now concentrated mostly to the area defined by the width of the poles or pole pieces. Just as when you hold a hose or water nozzle perfectly vertical, the water flows down all around the outside of the nozzle and would have a hard time driving a turbine wheel, but if you bend the nozzle over, now the water flows in a stream away from the hose body, making it easier to drive a water wheel. Nothing new has been introduced, the position of the flow (water) or magnetic flux (magnet) has just been relocated away from the magnet body to make it easier to use.  Now I think you are really grasping at straws.

 Please refer to my "7 questions". This _fact_, which can be observed in my video, shows the same thing that a moving wire would show in the same position. Recall that current is induced in a wire that "cuts" across magnetic field lines. This means at the exact center region of the magnet, the wire would have to be moving radially towards and away from the body of the magnet to "cut" the field lines perpendicularly. This is kind of hard to arrange experimentally with actual straight magnets and wires, but the Hall sensor shows the same thing: see "hall effect" in your favorite reference to see how the Hall voltage is produced. Also it is demonstrated by 2-piece homopolar dynamos, where a strong current is produced by moving a conductor, at right angles to the flux, through the midpoint of the field between the poles of a U or C shaped magnet.
Quote
Simply by bending a bar magnet into a C-shape I have introduced NO new magnetic fields! I have simply redirected the flux so that instead of "flowing" along the long axis of the bar magnet from pole to pole,it is now flowing from pole to pole out in a space away from the body of the magnet.

A misunderstanding there TK,as you said-Quote: .But also of course you will be able to do work by spinning a coil of wire in the same position as your "forceless" probe or non-acting reed switch: See "electric motor" in  WIKI

The coil of wire produces magnetic fields !dose it not!?,there for you have introduced two more magnetic fields.

Quote
The Hall sensor test in my video definitely shows that there is a flux at the midpoint of the magnet, and since it is giving almost the same reading there as on the pole itself, it shows that the flux is going mostly straight through the plane of the sensor, which is held perpendicular to the long axis of the magnet
.

Yes,it shows flux in the center,but both the value of that flux and it's strength is 0.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 12:30:19 AM
You mean something like the picture i posted some time back?
Your depiction is absolutely wrong.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 12:34:24 AM
A misunderstanding there TK,as you said-Quote: .But also of course you will be able to do work by spinning a coil of wire in the same position as your "forceless" probe or non-acting reed switch: See "electric motor" in  WIKI

The coil of wire produces magnetic fields !dose it not!?,there for you have introduced two more magnetic fields.
.

Yes,it shows flux in the center,but both the value of that flux and it's strength is 0.
Again this is wrong.  There is really and truly a good deal of flux near the magnet mid point.  The orientation of that flux is all parallel to the dipole.  If you watch a fast moving stream that runs exactly north to south, what is the flow rate east to west?  Does the fact that there is no east-west flow make the flow rate in the stream north to south any less than somewhere up stream or down stream there is a bend that turns east or west?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 12:35:09 AM

.
MileHigh
Quote
Anyway, I can see that Tinman is close to getting a better understanding.  I note it looks like he has a notion of 'north flux' and 'south flux' originating at each pole and where they meet half way they 'cancel each other out' and then there is no 'useful field' there.

TinMan has always had the correct understanding. I have posted !how many times?! the highlighted in the above quote. I have said time and time again that the useful magnetic field is in the shape of a figure 8/peanut.

Quote
I think a few simple drawings would aid in people's descriptions from time to time.

Im not sure how many more drawings you would like me to post,but i will post one useing water,pipes and a pump that fully explains what TK show's with his hall sensor,and why he shows a continual flux along the length of the magnet. The flux is there,but a defined magnetic field(north or south) is not.

I have been talking about the effective magnetic field all along,as i have mentioned in many post.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: itsu on January 11, 2015, 12:36:16 AM
Not exactly. In the scan with the sensor at right angles to the long axis of the magnet stack, the "dip" and the "peak" are indicating exactly or pretty much the same flux density, just different directions wrt the sensor plane. Recall that the center, or zero baseline, of the scope trace is indicating _zero flux_ through the plane of the sensor, and positive deflection indicates flux in one direction wrt the sensor plane, and negative deflection indicates flux in the opposite direction. The difference between "peak" and "dip" only indicates the direction of the flux through the plane of the sensor. This difference is because the sensor is flipped 180 degrees from one scan to the other, so the flux passes through it in the opposite direction relative to the sensor orientation. The "peak" and the "dip" in Itsu's video are showing the point where the field lines are the most parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack and have the least density, just as shown in the conventional picture of the field lines. If the "peanut waist" picture were true the data would be very different than what Itsu has demonstrated. All of the above paragraph refers to the scans where the sensor is held at right angles to the long axis of the magnet stack.

When the sensor is held so that the plane is parallel to the long axis of the magnet, the sensor output goes to zero or rather the zero baseline of the scope trace, indicating _no flux through the sensor_ at the center of the stack. This means that the field lines are parallel to the plane of the sensor at that point, fully confirming the conventional view of the field lines. If the "peanut waist" view were correct, there would be a maximum reading (well above the baseline) just to one side of this null point and a minimum reading (well below the baseline) just on the other side. But this is not what happens: the maximum reading occurs at one pole, grading smoothly to zero at the center, and grading smoothly to the minimum reading at the other pole. Very different from what is predicted by the "peanut waist" or "Bloch wall" picture.  The above paragraph refers to the scans where the sensor is held with the plane parallel to the long axis of the magnet stack.

I think Itsu's demonstration might be more stable if he used the wide part of the magnet stack instead of the narrow part. You can see how difficult it is to hold manually the proper orientation of the Hall sensor, and deviating slightly from the centerline of the narrow face of the stack causes fluctuations in the reading from the sensor. This effect would probably be less if he scanned the wider face of the stack.

Itsu's demonstration appears to me to be reporting the identical picture of the field line direction and density that my own demonstrations provide, and is refuting the "peanut waist" picture and confirming the conventional picture of the direction and density of the field lines around the stack of magnets.


Part 2, the parallel scan of my magnet stack, will be viewable in a few minutes:
http://youtu.be/OTe4rNwrZKY (http://youtu.be/OTe4rNwrZKY)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe4rNwrZKY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe4rNwrZKY)


Ok,  wide part of the magnet stack scanned, sensor fixed from above, sliding the magnet stack underneath it (1cm)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5WxjH8IqM&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 12:51:10 AM


 Koala,
        You've got an inventive sort of mind. Is there any way you could arrange
your magnets to give a "figure of eight" to satisfy Tinman's aspirations?
             John.
Are you at it again John?-having a shot at me?. You dont have to rearange anything to see the figure 8 field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 12:54:45 AM

I agree, it looks like that, but thats probably because my hasty video job on the upper flux, in reality its different, see this new short video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zShIcIsvBS4&feature=youtu.be


Regards Itsu
Thank you Itsu,TK and AC for doing these test. Different results from TK to that of Itsu and AC,so where dose that leave us?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 12:55:37 AM

Ok,  wide part of the magnet stack scanned, sensor fixed from above, sliding the magnet stack underneath it (1cm)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5WxjH8IqM&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu
Yep, that is as should be expected. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 01:01:48 AM
Your depiction is absolutely wrong.
My depiction is correct in regards to the useful magnetic field. This i have said time and time again.

Both Itsu and AC have shown this to be true with your very own test.
Like i said before Mark,you are including your !field of dreams! into the picture.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 01:05:54 AM
@tinman

If we were to plot the "difference" between the center zero plane between the two poles and the looped conventional paths then yes I believe it very well may follow the line you have depicted. To be honest I never thought of that until I saw your diagram.


There are points where the parallel and perpendicular measures from the hall sensor appear equal within the field where the two planes intersect.


I should be able to add another sensor at 90 degrees and plot a second graph with labview. Then a third graph showing the difference between the two and follow the line.


AC
I will be looking forward to that AC.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 01:29:23 AM
Thank you Itsu,TK and AC for doing these test. Different results from TK to that of Itsu and AC,so where dose that leave us?
TK's parallel facing tests agree with:  theory Itus's tests and my own.  Itsu's perpendicular tests agree with theory and my own experiments with ceramic and ferrite magnets.
TK's perpendicular facing tests with nearly uniform readings may have saturated the sensor amplifier.  That would have been particularly likely if his magnets are very strong. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 11, 2015, 01:33:00 AM

TK's perpendicular facing tests with nearly uniform readings may have saturated the sensor amplifier.  That would have been particularly likely if his magnets are very strong.


I believe TK said in one/both videos that his little magnets were N52, which is very strong.  I have mostly N40 (or thereabouts) here and they are incredibly strong.  I was surprised to see that they did not mess with his meter.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 01:33:51 AM
My depiction is correct in regards to the useful magnetic field. This i have said time and time again.

Both Itsu and AC have shown this to be true with your very own test.
Like i said before Mark,you are including your !field of dreams! into the picture.
Tinman one does not get to redefine scientific terms to suit oneself.   The lines that you have drawn do not correspond to convention for depicting magnetic flux.  You have drawn something that means something to you in terms of flux density.  Lines are representations of the quantity of magnetic flux passing through a cross section that slices into the page on which the lines are drawn.  Closer lines correspond to higher flux density in the representation. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 01:36:12 AM
I believe TK said in one/both videos that his little magnets were N52, which is very strong.  I have mostly N40 (or thereabouts) here and they are incredibly strong.  I was surprised to see that they did not mess with his meter.

Bill
That would explain his perpendicular results.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2015, 01:48:40 AM

Ok,  wide part of the magnet stack scanned, sensor fixed from above, sliding the magnet stack underneath it (1cm)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5WxjH8IqM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5WxjH8IqM&feature=youtu.be)

Regards Itsu

Nicely done, and perfectly in agreement with the _standard picture_ of the magnetic field lines. If you could overlay the standard image of the field lines, you'd see that your sensor readings are perfectly in accord with the picture in both direction and magnitude.
 
The slight asymmetry you detect, where the "dip" is at minimum value not exactly in the center of the stack, is probably due to the slight asymmetry in the Hall sensor itself. If you rotate the sensor 180 degrees you will probably find that the minimum (or maximum) will follow the rotation and appear on the other side of the actual center of the magnet stack, proving that it is the Hall sensor and not the field that is "offcenter".  The image below is from the Data Sheet for the sensor I am using, and you can see that the sensor's response is slightly asymmetric wrt the direction of flux through the plane of the sensor. Since this is a characteristic of Hall sensors in general, it probably is true for yours as well.

What is the part number of your sensor, and can you provide a Data Sheet for us to look at?


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 01:52:00 AM
Tinman one does not get to redefine scientific terms to suit oneself.   The lines that you have drawn do not correspond to convention for depicting magnetic flux.  You have drawn something that means something to you in terms of flux density.  Lines are representations of the quantity of magnetic flux passing through a cross section that slices into the page on which the lines are drawn.  Closer lines correspond to higher flux density in the representation.
I am sorry that i dont conform to your science.
I have drawn the shape of the effective magnetic fields-the definitive fields.Your unified field theory is just more junk science that leads people up the garden path,and confuses the hell out of them. Your fancy terms mean nothing to me,as i am after physical realities. You(nor anyone else) cant even tell us what is suppose to be flowing from north to south-depicted on the pretty drawings by arrow's. These are man made confab's-nothing more. This direction of flow as shown by the arrows on the magnetic field drawings dose not exist,nor do field lines. North and south is mans way of depicting a difference/an opposite,and these opposites merge at the center of the dipole,one dose NOT contine to dominate from one end of a magnet to the other.
The effective fields ARE in the shape of a figure 8/peanut. All closed systems have a minimum of two loop's-not one.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2015, 01:58:20 AM
TK's parallel facing tests agree with:  theory Itus's tests and my own.  Itsu's perpendicular tests agree with theory and my own experiments with ceramic and ferrite magnets.
TK's perpendicular facing tests with nearly uniform readings may have saturated the sensor amplifier.  That would have been particularly likely if his magnets are very strong.

Yes, and Itsu's and my _data_ also agree with the _data_ that allcanadian has posted. The trouble is with AC's interpretation of his data, I think.

Yes, the sensor is saturated near the poles and is out of its linear response range which is only rated as between +/- 900 Gauss, that is, 900 Gauss in either direction. The linearity may be somewhat off during the central portion of the scan, but I don't think it is saturated there, because it definitely responds to changes in orientation and lateral position.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2015, 02:20:07 AM
I am sorry that i dont conform to your science.
I have drawn the shape of the effective magnetic fields-the definitive fields.Your unified field theory is just more junk science that leads people up the garden path,and confuses the hell out of them.
Wrong. The standard interpretation of field lines is used by engineers every day to design things that actually work. Not junk science at all, but real science, supported by all kinds of math, experiment, experience and actual working stuff like motors, generators, CRTs, electron microscopes, CAT scanners and more.
Quote
Your fancy terms mean nothing to me,as i am after physical realities. You(nor anyone else) cant even tell us what is suppose to be flowing from north to south-depicted on the pretty drawings by arrow's.
Wrong again. The physical realities are shown by the working devices that were designed according to the conventional view of field lines. The arrows indicate the direction a test particle of a particular type would tend to move at that particular location, as I've mentioned before. Nothing "flows" along those lines of flux unless you put something there.
Quote
[These are man made confab's-nothing more. This direction of flow as shown by the arrows on the magnetic field drawings dose not exist,nor do field lines.
Almost right. The concept of "field" and the "field lines" that represent the field are indeed man-made constructs... not confabulations, but useful aids to understanding, just like contour lines on a topo map or isobars on a weather map. Look on a mountain, you do not see "real" elevation contours, but the topo map tells you how fast and in what direction a beachball would "flow" on the real terrain. Look in the sky and you do not see isobars, but the isobars on the weather map tell you how fast and in what direction the wind will be blowing. Very useful constructs, just like the field lines and arrows of a magnetic field depiction.
Quote
North and south is mans way of depicting a difference/an opposite,and these opposites merge at the center of the dipole,one dose NOT contine to dominate from one end of a magnet to the other.
Nope, wrong again. All magnetic field lines are _closed loops_, there is no such thing as a real magnetic monopole, and this is the actual physical meaning of the Maxwell's Equation called Gauss's Law of Magnetism: DivB=0. "North" and "South" correspond to the arrows on the closed loop of the field line, or the direction a test particle would move at that location. Consider the circular magnetic field around a single current-carrying wire: North means you are looking at the arrow point face-on, South means the arrow point is hitting you in the back of the head. So to speak. Same thing is true for the _closed loops_ that are made by the field lines of a permanent magnet: they are all closed loops, arrow pointing out of the "N" pole, looping around and entering the "S" pole _and continuing unbroken through the physical body of the magnet_. Closed loops. DivB=0. That is just the way it is! And we are surrounded by devices that prove this _fact_ every day.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c2)
Quote

The effective fields ARE in the shape of a figure 8/peanut. All closed systems have a minimum of two loop's-not one.

For certain values of "effective" only. Your "two loops" are not mapping field lines, they are mapping resultant forces, which are combinations of the forces a ferromagnetic particle would feel as it is attracted to _both poles_ of the magnet, and as it tries to move in the direction and with the strength that is the _resultant_ of the vector sum of the felt forces from both poles. This is not the same thing as the field lines which describe the field, and are mapped by the Hall sensors and which are used in designs of magnetic systems that actually work as the designers intend.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 11, 2015, 02:29:39 AM
Thank you Itsu,TK and AC for doing these test. Different results from TK to that of Itsu and AC,so where dose that leave us?
Not actually, I think all three of us have shown similar results, if you allow for possible saturation of my sensor near the poles. AC's interpretation is different, but his data also seems to be perfectly in accord with the standard view, as is Itsu's and mine.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 02:34:12 AM
Below is a simple picture useing pipes,water and a pump to show what a hall sensor is showing in regards to a magnetic field as a whole.

Water is simply being circulated around an enclosed system. On pipe A we have 3 pressure gauges,and the arrows depict water flow direction through the pipes and pump. If we take a flow meter(the equivalent to what a hall sensor would be in the magnetic field mapping of a PM)and placed it anywhere in pipe A,it would read exactly the same flow rate along the length of that pipe,even though we have different pressure levels along that pipe(that would represent the figure 8 when mapped). As you can see,the first gauge reads 5psi(we will call this end south so as the arrows that depict flow line up with those as depicted in magnetic field drawings),the middle gauge reads 0psi(this is the area where the vacuum from the inlet of the pump is equal to the pressure out from the pump),this is the null magnetic field region. The last gauge(the north end) shows a negative pressure of 5psi-the opposite to the first gauge.

As you can see,the water is indeed flowing through the pipe(this is true also for magnetic flux along the length of a magnet),but you will note that the pressure value at the center of the pipe is 0,regardless of flow.The first gauge and the last gauge can perform work in that they move the needle in the pressure gauge-->the middle gauge cannot. This stands true for a magnetic field around a PM
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 02:47:32 AM
I am sorry that i dont conform to your science.
Dude, we are talking about two things:  Accepted conventions, those are necessary for effective communication, and accepted science which takes strong evidence to change.  What you are doing is saying that the latter is wrong, because you choose to misinterpret the former.
Quote
I have drawn the shape of the effective magnetic fields-the definitive fields.
You have drawn a representation of flux density after a fashion where distance from the magnet indicates magnitude.  The rest of the world draws plots of magnetic flux
Quote
Your unified field theory is just more junk science that leads people up the garden path,and confuses the hell out of them. Your fancy terms mean nothing to me,as i am after physical realities.
You know this: "I am ignorant, hear me roar!" routine eventually gets old. Ignorance is not superior knowledge.  It is a lack of knowledge.  Several here have extended you great patience in terms of trying to help you connect your observations to the reality of the very good understanding that we have of how magnetic fields behave.  You have returned those favors with some pretty rude behavior. 
Quote
You(nor anyone else) cant even tell us what is suppose to be flowing from north to south-depicted on the pretty drawings by arrow's.
It is called magnetic flux.
Quote
These are man made confab's-nothing more.
The representation of flux using lines is certainly a man-made convention.  As TK says:  "Don't confuse the map for what the map represents."
Quote
This direction of flow as shown by the arrows on the magnetic field drawings dose not exist,nor do field lines.
Magnetic flux is very real.
Quote
North and south is mans way of depicting a difference/an opposite,and these opposites merge at the center of the dipole,one dose NOT contine to dominate from one end of a magnet to the other.
The north and south ends of a dipole indicate the maxima of tension in a given orientation.  In a dipole you can think of them as the ends of a stretched spring.  At each anchored end, the tension measured externally is towards the opposing end of the spring.  Internally the spring tension magnitude is constant.  There is no tension zero half way or anywhere else through the spring.  But if you simply drive current through a very long straight wire you will not be able to find a north or south end.  You will only find an orientation of flux that surrounds the wire.
Quote
The effective fields ARE in the shape of a figure 8/peanut. All closed systems have a minimum of two loop's-not one.
What you are calling effective fields is more or less the local flux density.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 02:54:22 AM
Below is a simple picture useing pipes,water and a pump to show what a hall sensor is showing in regards to a magnetic field as a whole.

Water is simply being circulated around an enclosed system. On pipe A we have 3 pressure gauges,and the arrows depict water flow direction through the pipes and pump. If we take a flow meter(the equivalent to what a hall sensor would be in the magnetic field mapping of a PM)and placed it anywhere in pipe A,it would read exactly the same flow rate along the length of that pipe,even though we have different pressure levels along that pipe(that would represent the figure 8 when mapped). As you can see,the first gauge reads 5psi(we will call this end south so as the arrows that depict flow line up with those as depicted in magnetic field drawings),the middle gauge reads 0psi(this is the area where the vacuum from the inlet of the pump is equal to the pressure out from the pump),this is the null magnetic field region. The last gauge(the north end) shows a negative pressure of 5psi-the opposite to the first gauge.

As you can see,the water is indeed flowing through the pipe(this is true also for magnetic flux along the length of a magnet),but you will note that the pressure value at the center of the pipe is 0,regardless of flow.The first gauge and the last gauge can perform work in that they move the needle in the pressure gauge-->the middle gauge cannot. This stands true for a magnetic field around a PM
You have chasen an arbitrary location for your pressure zero.  The pressure falls from the pump outlet all the way back to the pump inlet.  Were the pressure actually zero at the middle of the upper pipe segment, there would not be any impetus for water to continue to flow past that point.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 03:10:30 AM
You have chasen an arbitrary location for your pressure zero.  The pressure falls from the pump outlet all the way back to the pump inlet.  Were the pressure actually zero at the middle of the upper pipe segment, there would not be any impetus for water to continue to flow past that point.
Looks like we have stumbled onto a subject that you know little about Mark. You do kknow what a jet pump is!dont you?!
Lucky for me,i have been working on pumping systems for over 25 years on mine sites,and knowing this sort of information was a must and part of our training.

The pressure and vacuum reach equilibrium exactly where i have depicted the pressure gauge(minus a very small amount due to friction within the pipes) that reads zero when all pipe sizes are equal in size and length,and a jet pump is used-as i also depicted.

Quote: Were the pressure actually zero at the middle of the upper pipe segment, there would not be any impetus for water to continue to flow past that point.
 Are you for real :o

We have pressure on one side,and vacuum on the other,and you think the water wont flow?
Go place your two hands in a tub of water,and move them fro left to right together-->with a gap of say 1/2 a foot between your hands. Your left hand is creating a pressure ,and your right hand is creating a vacuum on the body of water between your hand. Will the water between your hands move? will there be a point in that volume of water where the pressure and vacume are equal,and will that water still move?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 03:56:02 AM
Below is a diagram of a very simple jet pump,same type as used in jet skie's.
The suction pressure on the inlet side is the same negative value to that of the outlet side when inlet and outlet nozzles are of the same size. It will remain the same(minus water flow friction in the pipes) until a point of cavitation is reached-and then there is trouble. But as you can see in my previous diagram,at those pressures no cavitation will occur.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 11, 2015, 04:15:00 AM
Looks like we have stumbled onto a subject that you know little about Mark. You do kknow what a jet pump is!dont you?!
Lucky for me,i have been working on pumping systems for over 25 years on mine sites,and knowing this sort of information was a must and part of our training.

The pressure and vacuum reach equilibrium exactly where i have depicted the pressure gauge(minus a very small amount due to friction within the pipes) that reads zero when all pipe sizes are equal in size and length,and a jet pump is used-as i also depicted.

Quote: Were the pressure actually zero at the middle of the upper pipe segment, there would not be any impetus for water to continue to flow past that point.
 Are you for real :o

We have pressure on one side,and vacuum on the other,and you think the water wont flow?
Go place your two hands in a tub of water,and move them fro left to right together-->with a gap of say 1/2 a foot between your hands. Your left hand is creating a pressure ,and your right hand is creating a vacuum on the body of water between your hand. Will the water between your hands move? will there be a point in that volume of water where the pressure and vacume are equal,and will that water still move?

Beware of tarbaby's...they are extremely sticky...3 foot clearance is the recommended distance.

Regards...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 11, 2015, 04:55:25 AM
@Mark E
Quote
You have chosen an arbitrary location for your pressure zero.  The pressure falls from the pump outlet all the way back to the pump inlet.  Were the pressure actually zero at the middle of the upper pipe segment, there would not be any impetus for water to continue to flow past that point.


However if we were to add a slight restriction or boundary condition at the middle where the pressure gauge is located then everything works perfectly which is of course applied mechanics 101. In a closed system as velocity increases the pressure decreases and the energy is then not in the pressure but the momentum ie. mass velocity of the fluid.


It is common sense, you cannot have a positive pressure at one end and a negative pressure on the other without the pressure passing through zero somewhere in between. Otherwise one must presume some spooky action at a distance must have taken place and well... that's just silly.


AC










Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 05:37:25 AM
@Mark E

However if we were to add a slight restriction or boundary condition at the middle where the pressure gauge is located then everything works perfectly which is of course applied mechanics 101. In a closed system as velocity increases the pressure decreases and the energy is then not in the pressure but the momentum ie. mass velocity of the fluid.


It is common sense, you cannot have a positive pressure at one end and a negative pressure on the other without the pressure passing through zero somewhere in between. Otherwise one must presume some spooky action at a distance must have taken place and well... that's just silly.


AC
LOL, place a differential pressure gauge across your restriction and tell me which side of the restriction it indicates has the higher pressure.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 05:41:19 AM
Looks like we have stumbled onto a subject that you know little about Mark. You do kknow what a jet pump is!dont you?!
Lucky for me,i have been working on pumping systems for over 25 years on mine sites,and knowing this sort of information was a must and part of our training.

The pressure and vacuum reach equilibrium exactly where i have depicted the pressure gauge(minus a very small amount due to friction within the pipes) that reads zero when all pipe sizes are equal in size and length,and a jet pump is used-as i also depicted.

Quote: Were the pressure actually zero at the middle of the upper pipe segment, there would not be any impetus for water to continue to flow past that point.
 Are you for real :o

We have pressure on one side,and vacuum on the other,and you think the water wont flow?
Vacuum is where there is lower pressure than the reference, typically the surroundings.  Negative pressure is a relative term.  Absolute pressure is always positive.
Quote
Go place your two hands in a tub of water,and move them fro left to right together-->with a gap of say 1/2 a foot between your hands. Your left hand is creating a pressure ,and your right hand is creating a vacuum on the body of water between your hand. Will the water between your hands move? will there be a point in that volume of water where the pressure and vacume are equal,and will that water still move?
Force is the integral of pressure difference over an area.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 08:58:09 AM
Vacuum is where there is lower pressure than the reference, typically the surroundings.  Negative pressure is a relative term.  Absolute pressure is always positive.Force is the integral of pressure difference over an area.
Negative pressure is used in everyday physics and mechanicl engineering-go look it up on google.a vacume exist within a closed medium, and in this case it is between the area of the middle gauge and pump inlet
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 09:25:30 AM
Negative pressure is used in everyday physics and mechanicl engineering-go look it up on google.a vacume exist within a closed medium, and in this case it is between the area of the middle gauge and pump inlet
Negative differential pressure is common.  Negative gauge pressure which is negative differential pressure relative to the local atmosphere is common.  Negative absolute pressure requires that a volume contain less than zero matter.  There is no such known condition.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 10:10:01 AM
Negative differential pressure is common.  Negative gauge pressure which is negative differential pressure relative to the local atmosphere is common.  Negative absolute pressure requires that a volume contain less than zero matter.  There is no such known condition.
There you go again Mark, throwing in things no one said anything about. Please quote where I said or depicted anything about absolute negative pressure. I now know what you are all about-twisting things around, and placing missbeliefe within others due to your own incorporations that no one ever mentioned. My diagram shows exactly what I said, and is clear for everyone to see. You cant accept the fact that you were wrong, and so you try to save face with some fanciful absolute vacuum that no one here ever mentioned.

Nice try-but an epic fail.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 10:32:32 AM
There you go again Mark, throwing in things no one said anything about. Please quote where I said or depicted anything about absolute negative pressure. I now know what you are all about-twisting things around, and placing missbeliefe within others due to your own incorporations that no one ever mentioned. My diagram shows exactly what I said, and is clear for everyone to see. You cant accept the fact that you were wrong, and so you try to save face with some fanciful absolute vacuum that no one here ever mentioned.

Nice try-but an epic fail.
Tinman where did you say qualify pressure as gage or differential?  It is up to you to say what you mean.  I can go out and buy pressure sensors that are any of the three:  differential, gage, or absolute.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 11, 2015, 10:49:41 AM



   Nowhere to my knowledge has anyone ever showed anything like a figure of eight.
   I'd be most grateful to know where to look.
                      John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 11, 2015, 11:18:56 AM
Force is the integral of pressure difference over an area.
...just like attraction force is related to magnetic flux density gradient.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: itsu on January 11, 2015, 12:17:09 PM
Nicely done, and perfectly in agreement with the _standard picture_ of the magnetic field lines. If you could overlay the standard image of the field lines, you'd see that your sensor readings are perfectly in accord with the picture in both direction and magnitude.
 
The slight asymmetry you detect, where the "dip" is at minimum value not exactly in the center of the stack, is probably due to the slight asymmetry in the Hall sensor itself. If you rotate the sensor 180 degrees you will probably find that the minimum (or maximum) will follow the rotation and appear on the other side of the actual center of the magnet stack, proving that it is the Hall sensor and not the field that is "offcenter".  The image below is from the Data Sheet for the sensor I am using, and you can see that the sensor's response is slightly asymmetric wrt the direction of flux through the plane of the sensor. Since this is a characteristic of Hall sensors in general, it probably is true for yours as well.

What is the part number of your sensor, and can you provide a Data Sheet for us to look at?


TK, thanks, 

the used Hall sensor was mentioned here:   http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431679/#msg431679

Its a UGN3503UA (similar to yours) and the data sheet can be found here:  http://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/55099/ALLEGRO/UGN3503UA.html

So the noted offset could be due to this asymmetric response, great.


Regards itsu
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 01:38:43 PM
Tinman where did you say qualify pressure as gage or differential?  It is up to you to say what you mean.  I can go out and buy pressure sensors that are any of the three:  differential, gage, or absolute.
Oh-sorry Mark-what would you suppose the gages would be telling you when they are gages that read psi both positive and negative pressures. What gauges would you normaly use when reading water pressure in a pipe?.
Or do I havevto spoon feed you?
Unbelievable
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 11, 2015, 01:57:35 PM
Oh-sorry Mark-what would you suppose the gages would be telling you when they are gages that read psi both positive and negative pressures. What gauges would you normaly use when reading water pressure in a pipe?.
Or do I havevto spoon feed you?
Unbelievable

I think you need to check the attitude there Tinman.  You know the drill:  Make your points and advance your argument without drama and without disrespecting others.  I am sure that you have learned a lot of stuff from Mark in the past year or so.

You are dead wrong in the way you think how magnetic fields work as is clearly illustrated sometimes by your choice of words.  Hopefully you will eventually come to this realization yourself.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 11, 2015, 02:32:58 PM
Oh-sorry Mark-what would you suppose the gages would be telling you when they are gages that read psi both positive and negative pressures. What gauges would you normaly use when reading water pressure in a pipe?.
Or do I havevto spoon feed you?
Unbelievable
It is not up to me to second guess you.  It is up to you to specify your proposed set-up.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 11, 2015, 05:09:52 PM
@Mark
Quote
LOL, place a differential pressure gauge across your restriction and tell me which side of the restriction it indicates has the higher pressure.


That would be analogous to a volt meter and doesn't really give much specific insight in my opinion. Knowing there is a difference between two things without knowing the how and why and where specifically is simply a generalization of the facts in my opinion.


Why all our pumps at work have three valves and a gauge to measure discharge pressure, suction pressure, differential pressure and system pressure. We do this because Engineers prefer to know rather than guess at what may be happening. You should try it you may like it.


In any case a gross generalization of the facts and lumped sum measures is generally a losing proposition and the devil is in the details.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 11, 2015, 06:11:46 PM
I agree with you except for the part I've highlighted. Let's rephrase it so we can agree 100 percent: Storing energy by magnetizing  _permanent magnets_ and attempting to recover that stored energy is inefficient. On the other hand, storing and recovering _mechanical_ energy by using the attractive and repulsive forces associated with PMs, can be very efficient (I think most every pulse motor builder knows that the "cogging" of magnets/cores in relative motion is nearly energy-neutral, that is, an efficient storage and recovery of mechanical energy).
 
But we see very efficient storage and recovery of electrical energy from magnetic fields every day, all the time. Your computer would not operate, were it otherwise. Nor would radios or many other devices we use every day. Look at the definition of "Q"... the inefficiency comes from losses in a circuit's resistive elements and unintended radiation of power, not from storage and recovery in the magnetic field itself.


    I see the destruction of a magnetic field as an input in energy from whatever is driving the entropy of the Universe.  If a bar of steel is magnetized due to a current flow and the bar becomes a permanent magnet we are facing efficiency problems.  If the same current flow produces a magnetic field change in a transformer that collapses upon cessation of the current then there appears to be some force that is destroying the current produced magnetic field.  It could be ambient heat-electron kinetic energy-basically any force leading to the chaotic side of things.  If we use the current that produces a magnetic field change in a transformer core, to charge a capacitor and then allow this capacitor to charge a second capacitor the efficiency starts to go up and up.  See attached schematic.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 11, 2015, 08:21:10 PM
I see the destruction of a magnetic field as an input in energy from whatever is driving the entropy of the Universe. 
Interesting way to look at things.
I have some nice GIF animations about related issue which I cannot post here because this forum's software corrupts GIF files. 
Look, I attached a 141kB file but only 10kB will get downloaded if you try to open or save it  :o

The same force that destroys the magnetic field in an iron core also rotates two coaxial permanent magnets.



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 11, 2015, 08:34:02 PM
I think you need to check the attitude there Tinman.  You know the drill:  Make your points and advance your argument without drama and without disrespecting others.  I am sure that you have learned a lot of stuff from Mark in the past year or so.

You are dead wrong in the way you think how magnetic fields work as is clearly illustrated sometimes by your choice of words.  Hopefully you will eventually come to this realization yourself.
I need to check my attitude?
Some people just need to see some thing as simple as they are, and not try and show us how big there nuts are. Im doing my best to try and explain what im trying to show in simple to understand diagrams, and professor Mark want the full schematic for the space shuttle.
Do you agree with Mark that water wont flow at the 0 pressure point in the line? If not, why not say something as you would with others MH-AC had the balls to step up.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 11, 2015, 11:29:25 PM
@All - I have been lurking, reading along and watching.

I just laugh at some of this - It is SO Un-Constructive!

A very smart person suggested I re-read T H Moray - The Sea of Energy in which the Earth Floats

Moray was up against people just like are Preaching here. He points out the same Dogma 100 years ago, that's nearly 200 years of Dogma!

Sad!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 11, 2015, 11:33:42 PM
@All - I have been lurking, reading along and watching.

I just laugh at some of this - It is SO Un-Constructive!

A very smart person suggested I re-read T H Moray - The Sea of Energy in which the Earth Floats

Moray was up against people just like are Preaching here. He points out the same Dogma 100 years ago, that's nearly 200 years of Dogma!

Sad!

Yes, and your computer, cell phone, microwave oven, and all of the electronic and magnetic devices that we use daily work on his principles...oh wait...no, they work on proven scientific laws and theories.

Sorry,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 11, 2015, 11:45:15 PM
Yes, and your computer, cell phone, microwave oven, and all of the electronic and magnetic devices that we use daily work on his principles...oh wait...no, they work on proven scientific laws and theories.

Sorry,

Bill

Bill - You're proving to be such a un-constructive body!

Tesla, is the reason for your Computer running, he also faced the same dogma!

I know what youre NOT searching for Bill, when the lights go out youre still going to be in the dark!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 12, 2015, 12:03:55 AM
I need to check my attitude?
Some people just need to see some thing as simple as they are, and not try and show us how big there nuts are. Im doing my best to try and explain what im trying to show in simple to understand diagrams, and professor Mark want the full schematic for the space shuttle.
Do you agree with Mark that water wont flow at the 0 pressure point in the line? If not, why not say something as you would with others MH-AC had the balls to step up.

I am not an expert on this stuff.  I am not sure about the industrial conventions for measuring pressure.  I see a length of pipe and with the implied scale in your drawing the pipe is relatively short.  That messes up the pressure-voltage analogy.  Just the same, for your drawing it could be 5 psi, 0 psi, -5 psi or 10 psi, 5 psi, 0 psi or 0 psi, -5 psi, -10 psi.   I don't know if you pressure measurements are relative to the outside atmosphere or just within the pipe itself.  I don't know what the rest pressure inside the pipe is.  I don't even know if there is an 'incompressible fluid Benoulli's principle' at play and am too tired to do the reading.  Too many unknowns for me.  I understand pressure but i don't know how to talk shop with people in that field.

It sounds like the water should flow at '0 pressure' because you have a pump.  But again, I am not sure how that pressure is defined.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 12, 2015, 12:14:21 AM
Quote
Tesla, is the reason for your Computer running, he also faced the same dogma!

It's the 24-hour Tesla news cycle.

From what can gleam, I have my doubts that Tesla could conceive of a tube computer or design and program one.  When all that stuff started happening he was an eccentric old man.

If you are going to play the 'roots' game for this one you may as well say Maxwell, Faraday, John Ambrose Flemming, Lee de Forest, and Charles Babbage.  There is no need for a stopover at Tesla at all.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 12, 2015, 12:36:51 AM
Bill - You're proving to be such a un-constructive body!

Tesla, is the reason for your Computer running, he also faced the same dogma!

I know what youre NOT searching for Bill, when the lights go out youre still going to be in the dark!

That's pretty funny, since Bill is using low-power Joule Thiefs for light all over his home, and using discarded batteries that people think are dead to run them. If anyone is _not_ going to be in the dark, it will be Bill!

Tesla is credited for the first electrical "AND" logic gate circuitry, used in his remote-controlled "Teleautomon" boat model, Patent # 613,809, in 1898. He was a genius inventor but a lousy businessman, and the only "dogma" that he faced came from shrewder businessmen who used him and his inventions for their own profit.  You can argue that Tesla was the Father of the Modern Digital Computer because of this invention, but that would be a pretty silly argument.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 12, 2015, 12:46:43 AM
Bill - You're proving to be such a un-constructive body!

Tesla, is the reason for your Computer running, he also faced the same dogma!

I know what youre NOT searching for Bill, when the lights go out youre still going to be in the dark!

Really?

This is laughable.  Yes, my electronics stuff runs on 60Hz and that was a gift from Mr. Tesla.  You are implying that no one listened to him, so, how come we use his AC current then?  "He faced the same dogma" yet, his power ideas were adopted worldwide.

How does this make your point?

You have no idea what I am, or am not, searching for, so, I dismiss that out of hand.

The lights go out here all of the time yet, for some reason, I still have light....how can this be? ???

Last time they went out (for 6 hours) I went next door and loaned 2 of my JT circuit lights to my elderly neighbor so she would not be in the dark.  (She now bakes brownies for me every Christmas)

I light my apartment using JT circuits powered by "dead" batteries given to me by my friends so,  I still have plenty of light thank you.

I use only these devices to light my place so if the grid went down, I guess I would know because the beer in my fridge might be getting a little warm.  Other than that....no big deal. (Unless it is winter, like it is now)

In summary, i really have no idea what the point of your post was supposed to be....

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 12, 2015, 12:53:00 AM
   I believe Tesla was responsible for development of the radio transmission system that gives us the resonant rise in voltage and current in a radio receiver tuned circuit.   The circuit allows for storage of energy input from an antennae until the high frequency low amplitude currents accumulate and are transformed into higher amplitude lower frequency currents flowing in the receiver tuned circuit.  The original intent was two fold.  To discriminate between simultaneous transmissions of information and to provide power to the receiver.  Tesla was working before the amplifier tube of DeForrest came to be.  Power for the receiver had to be supplied by the transmitter.   Tesla could find no reason why the transmission of megawatts of power could not be accomplished without wires since he was already powering radio receivers.  It was a matter of scale.   The receiver resonant circuit was however to be the Earth.  This way the power transmitted would be regulated by the load dissipation.  It would be preposterous to Tesla to pump out kilowatts of rf to fall on deaf ears that didnt need it like a modern day radio transmitter does.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 12, 2015, 12:55:21 AM
Bill - You're proving to be such a un-constructive body!

Tesla, is the reason for your Computer running, he also faced the same dogma!

I know what youre NOT searching for Bill, when the lights go out youre still going to be in the dark!

Thats just the forum's resident arse kisser to the dogma drones EMJ.

Just pretend he's not there...like he isn't intellectually.

As a side note...

Who's the only scientist erased from the history books ?

Once you have the answer, you need not ask why.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2015, 01:08:13 AM
I need to check my attitude?
Some people just need to see some thing as simple as they are, and not try and show us how big there nuts are. Im doing my best to try and explain what im trying to show in simple to understand diagrams, and professor Mark want the full schematic for the space shuttle.
Do you agree with Mark that water wont flow at the 0 pressure point in the line? If not, why not say something as you would with others MH-AC had the balls to step up.
Tinman that clearly is not true.  I have many times asked you questions to get you to clarify what you have attempted to say.  Where I have objected is where you have declared things that are not true.  A pertinent example is your repeated misapplication of magnetic lines of force in diagrams.  You employ a convention where those lines and their meaning is your own and declare that lines of force as used by the rest of the world are wrong because they don't follow your redefinition.  You have declared that currently understood science fails to understand magnets as well as you claim to understand them, when what is going on is that you misunderstand current science.  You have stubbornly rebuffed nearly all attempts to gently reconcile the real observations you make with your misconceptions about what science tells you that you should be observing.  It is a bit like a person who visits a country where the visitor does not know the language and declares that the natives are all idiots, and anyone who takes the time to try to translate are difficult because they ask the visitor to be specific.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 12, 2015, 01:38:05 AM
  Tesla didn't run up against dogma he ran up against the old world order that controls money.  The old world order in it's attempt to keep us killing each other and slaving away for the insanely greedy power freaks don't take kindly to anything that would promote world cooperation.  Imagine a waterfall in Africa powering a Tesla transmitter to heat homes in New England.  Or a geothermal hot spring in Iceland providing air conditioning in Iraq.   Or a ocean thermal energy system in Hawaii providing power to a fertilizer producer in China.  The interdependence of the nations would naturally stimulate cooperation and moves away from the territorial  of one region by people from another.
Oh well sorry for getting this thread off topic.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 12, 2015, 01:46:46 AM
Tinman that clearly is not true.  I have many times asked you questions to get you to clarify what you have attempted to say.  Where I have objected is where you have declared things that are not true.  A pertinent example is your repeated misapplication of magnetic lines of force in diagrams.  You employ a convention where those lines and their meaning is your own and declare that lines of force as used by the rest of the world are wrong because they don't follow your redefinition.  You have declared that currently understood science fails to understand magnets as well as you claim to understand them, when what is going on is that you misunderstand current science.  You have stubbornly rebuffed nearly all attempts to gently reconcile the real observations you make with your misconceptions about what science tells you that you should be observing.  It is a bit like a person who visits a country where the visitor does not know the language and declares that the natives are all idiots, and anyone who takes the time to try to translate are difficult because they ask the visitor to be specific.
Mark
I am 1000km from my computor atm, and simply cannot show you why I feel the way I do in regards to my last posted diagram, and the events that took place after that. When I get back home, I will show you and MH what I seen take place.I will also try to explain to the best of my ability as to how and why I see the figure 8 field pattern.

My appologies to you for being a little more abrupt than I should have been

Brad
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 12, 2015, 01:51:21 AM
Thats just the forum's resident arse kisser to the dogma drones EMJ.

Just pretend he's not there...like he isn't intellectually.

As a side note...

Who's the only scientist erased from the history books ?

Once you have the answer, you need not ask why.

Regards...

I agree Cap-Z-ro! Edison only bought in the Dogma because he wanted to sell his inferior DC Service. Electrocuting Animals to try to prove his DC Service was better!


Dogma Definition:

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded


Kind Regards

  Chris
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2015, 01:58:35 AM
I agree Cap-Z-ro! Edison only bought in the Dogma because he wanted to sell his inferior DC Service.

Kind Regards

  Chris
The irony is that now it is low frequency AC distribution that is inferior, but so costly to replace that it will be with us for a long time.  What they could not do in the time of Tesla and Edison was up convert and down convert DC.  With AC that's as simple as using a transformer.  But if you want to transmit power over long distances efficiently, then since the 1950's the way to do that has been high voltage DC.  High voltage DC does not:  Suffer parasitic induction losses to the ground, or Require frequency synchronization, or Require power factor management.  High voltage DC does have one big problem:  Once a DC arc starts it is hell to stop it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 12, 2015, 02:04:18 AM
That's pretty funny, since Bill is using low-power Joule Thiefs for light all over his home, and using discarded batteries that people think are dead to run them. If anyone is _not_ going to be in the dark, it will be Bill!

Tesla is credited for the first electrical "AND" logic gate circuitry, used in his remote-controlled "Teleautomon" boat model, Patent # 613,809, in 1898. He was a genius inventor but a lousy businessman, and the only "dogma" that he faced came from shrewder businessmen who used him and his inventions for their own profit.  You can argue that Tesla was the Father of the Modern Digital Computer because of this invention, but that would be a pretty silly argument.

WOW - Bill good one, maybe some constructive chat about that?

Thanks TK for shedding light on something that is really surprising!

Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 12, 2015, 02:10:46 AM
The irony is that now it is low frequency AC distribution that is inferior, but so costly to replace that it will be with us for a long time.  What they could not do in the time of Tesla and Edison was up convert and down convert DC.  With AC that's as simple as using a transformer.  But if you want to transmit power over long distances efficiently, then since the 1950's the way to do that has been high voltage DC.  High voltage DC does not:  Suffer parasitic induction losses to the ground, or Require frequency synchronization, or Require power factor management.  High voltage DC does have one big problem:  Once a DC arc starts it is hell to stop it.

MarkE - I was not expecting this from you! Very Constructive! And Intuitive!

To truly have a solution that is even more IDEAL is to have no such thing as Transmission Lines and to keep the Transmitting medium as short as possible. This is surely the answer we are all here trying to find common ground on?

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2015, 02:56:34 AM
MarkE - I was not expecting this from you! Very Constructive! And Intuitive!

To truly have a solution that is even more IDEAL is to have no such thing as Transmission Lines and to keep the Transmitting medium as short as possible. This is surely the answer we are all here trying to find common ground on?

Kind Regards

  Chris
Transmission provides lots of benefits.  If you go back to the time of Edison, that's when we had locally generated power, because transmission was a big problem.  Edison was forced to locate power houses very close to his customers.  Tesla's AC system enabled transmission over distance.  But now it is more efficient to transmit large power over high voltage DC.

 A problem for the power companies and the terrestrial phone companies alike is that as residences move to more and more localized power and cell phones, the wiring into neighborhoods ceases to support the big profit centers of power and phone service that they once did.  But if one doesn't want to have local back-up generators similar to the generators every few blocks of Edison, then one has to figure out a combination of technology and policy that ensures a reliable power supply that does not depend on the gouging imposed by the existing power utilities.  It may be that the only practical way to deal with this is to phase out private ownership of transmission facilities.  Why is it that we use government to build and maintain the roads, water lines, and sewer, but we use private companies to provide power and data transmission?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 12, 2015, 03:06:28 AM
@Mark - I think you missed my point - I meant, off grid, your own Energy Machine  ;)

Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 12, 2015, 03:09:44 AM
@All - This video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTgIxhfhRcg

@: 23:38 on

It gives a fairly good description of what AC has said.

Also, makes one think a bit more on the Conventional Field Lines!

Thanks AC!

Kind Regards

Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 12, 2015, 03:48:00 AM
Why is it that we use government to build and maintain the roads, water lines, and sewer, but we use private companies to provide power and data transmission?


  Easier to regulate and tax the private companies on profits and users indirectly than to actually provide a service in exchange for taxation?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 12, 2015, 06:24:56 AM
Why is it that we use government to build and maintain the roads, water lines, and sewer, but we use private companies to provide power and data transmission?


  Easier to regulate and tax the private companies on profits and users indirectly than to actually provide a service in exchange for taxation?

@Sparks - government, ha, a debate I will not enter. I have a very low opinion on government!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2015, 06:28:37 AM
@Mark - I think you missed my point - I meant, off grid, your own Energy Machine  ;)

Chris
Now I got it that is the epitome of the old Edison model and suffers its weaknesses. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 12, 2015, 06:50:00 AM
Now I got it that is the epitome of the old Edison model and suffers its weaknesses.

@Mark - All Systems have a weakness, some much more than others. Lore holds here! But still, that's what we are here for!

Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 12, 2015, 08:14:12 AM
@Mark - All Systems have a weakness, some much more than others. Lore holds here! But still, that's what we are here for!

Chris
Often we find that what is old is considered new.  In a fully distributed but isolated model, everyone has their own energy source.  They are then limited to the: capacity, availability, and reliability of their private source.  On the other, they don't have to pay anyone else specifically for their supply.  They must pay for their worst-case requirements up front.  Shared networks must only support the worst-case requirements of the entire population.  Except where transmission is expensive this is a big advantage.  Each user only needs to contribute a bit more than their average usage and their portion of the transmission facility cost.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 12, 2015, 11:06:44 PM
@Mark - All Systems have a weakness, some much more than others. Lore holds here! But still, that's what we are here for!

Chris

Chris:

I think it's worth summarizing your points and where they stand:

1.  There is a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.

There is clearly no Bloch wall at the center of a magnet.  And no, you are not allowed to change the definition of "Bloch wall" to suit your needs.  I noted that you got very luke warm in pushing this false idea after a while yourself.   At this point in time are you prepared to concede that you were wrong?

2.  "Something" is going on with magnetic fields.

This is an undefined theme that you have harped on with literally dozens of examples.  Whenever the examples were legitimate they clearly backed up the commonly accepted understanding yet you kept on claiming victory for the "alternative" view.  This whole argument was a complete mess and as time went on any perception that you were stating something substantive grew less and less.  Add to that your frequent evasion with respect to questions posed at you and in the end no progress was made.  Also, to me it became readily apparent that you were not capable of contributing to the more technical discussions.

So in the end Chris, you came off as a lightweight making all sorts of proclamations but you clearly did not possess the technical competence to back up all of those proclamations.  It's just the classic case of a guy that tries to bluff his way through.  You didn't make it.

Anyway, I hope this was a learning experience for you and you can get something positive from it.  If you want to do something positive, you should take down any YouTube clips of yours where you claim that there is a Blich wall at the center of a magnet.

Finally, don't you dare call me or anyone else around here a "paid shill."  That's pure crap and you know it.  Towards the end you started to use that term when you were technically cornered and you had no way of getting out of it so you resorted to that nonsense.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 12, 2015, 11:25:02 PM
Quote
I have many times asked you questions to get you to clarify what you have attempted to say.  Where I have objected is where you have declared things that are not true.  A pertinent example is your repeated misapplication of magnetic lines of force in diagrams.


What i have been trying to do is show you the independant value of each field,insted of the unified field as depicted by most magnetic field diagrams. Quote Verpies- just like attraction force is related to magnetic flux density gradient.
So my figure 8 is showing the mapped flux density of each individual pole.

Now.as far as my diagram depicting a pump,pipes and gages.
You(as usual) were the first to comment.
Quote: post 841- Were the pressure actually zero at the middle of the upper pipe segment, there would not be any impetus for water to continue to flow past that point.

Other that this being incorrect,you have already made a statement in regards to how the system would opperate-->this was post 841.
Then in post -849 Quote: Negative differential pressure is common.  Negative gauge pressure which is negative differential pressure relative to the local atmosphere is common.  Negative absolute pressure requires that a volume contain less than zero matter.  There is no such known condition.

Where was absolute pressure show or mentioned in my diagram and post?.

Post 851 Quote: Tinman where did you say qualify pressure as gage or differential?  It is up to you to say what you mean.  I can go out and buy pressure sensors that are any of the three:  differential, gage, or absolute.

If i have have given no indication as to wether it is gage or differential pressure,then how did you make your decisions that your reply 841 was based around when you didnt know the value of the pressures?.
post 857 Quote:-It is not up to me to second guess you.  It is up to you to specify your proposed set-up.
But you have already taken a guess,as you posted what you think should be the case in post 841.

MH then says this-Quote: I think you need to check the attitude there Tinman.
Im guessing this is based around my three word's-oh-sorry Mark.
AC posted what i thought to ba a legitimate proposal-Quote: However if we were to add a slight restriction or boundary condition at the middle where the pressure gauge is located then everything works perfectly which is of course applied mechanics 101. In a closed system as velocity increases the pressure decreases and the energy is then not in the pressure but the momentum ie. mass velocity of the fluid.

Your reply Mark was to laugh in the face of another fellow experimentor Quote: LOL, place a differential pressure gauge across your restriction and tell me which side of the restriction it indicates has the higher pressure.
No word from MH saying that you need a attitude check.

We see this all to often,the big guns thinking that they are better than the rest of us,and what they do or say to others they concider below them is all ok from the other big guns,and nothing is said about any attitude check. There are of course exceptions amoungst those that have great knowledge in EE.

So my biggest beef was you making a formal conclusion about how and what my depicted diagram would actually result in before you knew what the pressure gauges were telling you,and then continue on later down the track to say that it is not you that needs second guess what my diagram is showing-after you have already told me how it was incorrect and wouldnt work the way i showed it.

The diagrem is not in any sort of scale MH,but it will do as i depicted.
@ Mark
If you look at the diagram,you can clearly work out what the gages are reading,which is gage pressure. Differential pressure is meassured between two individual sealed medium's-EG,you may have a hydrolic ram where you have a gauge on either side of the piston in the ram-but the medium must be sepperated,and as you can see in my diagram,the medium is not sepperated.

Hope that clears that up.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 12, 2015, 11:53:21 PM
MileHigh - There are two types of people in this world, talkers and doers!


Talkers can not come to any conclusions other than what they read!

Doers have Intuition, common-sense and a Native Intelligence. My experiments have led me to believe what I believe. No matter how much "Talk" you "Talk", simply, you have not provided a single bit of evidence to the contrary!

What sad and incomplete evidence you have come up with, I have proved, References, Video, supporting Documentation, that has shown you to be incorrect.

You asked for a debate, you failed to support your debate! Period!

Others here have shown enough to prove there is something going on at the Equator, their work also supports my experiments!

MileHigh, You have your opinion, I have mine, You think I am wrong, I think youre wrong.

I wonder if you can agree, to disagree?

1: In magnetism, a domain wall is an interface separating magnetic domains.
2: A magnetic domain is a region within a magnetic material which has uniform magnetization.
3: A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch.

I believe there is a polarisation difference between North and South. How about you be an adult and stop criticizing others for their Intuition and grow up!

Your Actions here have brought about definitions that fit with your Dogma! Don't like being defined, then here's an idea, live and let live! Be an Adult!

If you're afraid of sailing off the edge of the Earth because of the Flat Earth Theory? Then Don't go Sailing!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 12:15:45 AM
That's just a lot of hot air Chris.  I spent 10 years of my life in school and at work working on a bench.  I once made an estimate that I have about 4500 hours of experience on a bench.  It's not a huge amount of time nor is it a small amount of time.  I asked you if you would do experiments like measuring the amount of energy stored in the core of a transformer because I have done it myself.

You are just deluding yourself.  The "doers" crap falls flat.  If you are deluded and "doing" then all you end up doing is deluding yourself even more.

You were so technically out of it that you didn't even understand the architecture of a bar magnet and you were not capable of visualizing what is going on in a bar magnet.  Perhaps after this discussion on this thread you can, but clearly before the thread started discussing your issues you couldn't.

Quote
I believe there is a polarisation difference between North and South.

North and south don't even exist, they are just a naming convention.  You entered this thread believing that they existed and that there was a Bloch wall between the "north half" and the "south half" of a magnet.  Are you any wiser now I wonder or are you just going to continue bluffing your way through?

The issues are with you, and for you to contemplate.  If you are true to yourself you will take your nonsensical YouTube clips down.  You want an example of how not to behave?   Take a look at Daniel Nunez and his bird's nest "Rodin" coils.  The guy is so clueless that he barely even knows what he is doing on a bench and he can't make measurements at all.  I know this from watching lots of his clips.  It's simply painful watching and listening to him.  Yet he is considered to be a luminary in the free energy cottage industry.  You absolutely do not want to be like Daniel Nunez.  It up to you if you want to continue educating yourself or if you are just going to continue bluffing your audience and bluffing yourself.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 12:28:49 AM
That's just a lot of hot air Chris.

Which is no different to your Piffle Milehigh.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 12:39:46 AM
 

What i have been trying to do is show you the independant value of each field,insted of the unified field as depicted by most magnetic field diagrams. Quote Verpies- just like attraction force is related to magnetic flux density gradient.
So my figure 8 is showing the mapped flux density of each individual pole.
So finally we get to an agreement:  You have been mapping flux density with representations the rest of the world uses to map flux.  Do you now withdraw your objections to the truth of the representations of flux as normally used?
Quote

Now.as far as my diagram depicting a pump,pipes and gages.
You(as usual) were the first to comment.
Quote: post 841- Were the pressure actually zero at the middle of the upper pipe segment, there would not be any impetus for water to continue to flow past that point.

Other that this being incorrect,you have already made a statement in regards to how the system would opperate-->this was post 841.
Then in post -849 Quote: Negative differential pressure is common.  Negative gauge pressure which is negative differential pressure relative to the local atmosphere is common.  Negative absolute pressure requires that a volume contain less than zero matter.  There is no such known condition.

Where was absolute pressure show or mentioned in my diagram and post?.

Post 851 Quote: Tinman where did you say qualify pressure as gage or differential?  It is up to you to say what you mean.  I can go out and buy pressure sensors that are any of the three:  differential, gage, or absolute.

If i have have given no indication as to wether it is gage or differential pressure,then how did you make your decisions that your reply 841 was based around when you didnt know the value of the pressures?.
post 857 Quote:-It is not up to me to second guess you.  It is up to you to specify your proposed set-up.
But you have already taken a guess,as you posted what you think should be the case in post 841.

MH then says this-Quote: I think you need to check the attitude there Tinman.
Im guessing this is based around my three word's-oh-sorry Mark.
AC posted what i thought to ba a legitimate proposal-Quote: However if we were to add a slight restriction or boundary condition at the middle where the pressure gauge is located then everything works perfectly which is of course applied mechanics 101. In a closed system as velocity increases the pressure decreases and the energy is then not in the pressure but the momentum ie. mass velocity of the fluid.

Your reply Mark was to laugh in the face of another fellow experimentor Quote: LOL, place a differential pressure gauge across your restriction and tell me which side of the restriction it indicates has the higher pressure.
No word from MH saying that you need a attitude check.
Fair or not, the statement that AC offered was to me so preposterous that I think it deserved the LOL.  I think that if you go back through even just this thread you will find that I have been very patient with you.  I believe that I have focused on the technical issues.  MH speaks for himself.  He is far more concerned with who calls who names than I am.  There are on these threads some posters who behave very poorly, and generally I simply don't bother with them.
Quote

We see this all to often,the big guns thinking that they are better than the rest of us,and what they do or say to others they concider below them is all ok from the other big guns,and nothing is said about any attitude check. There are of course exceptions amoungst those that have great knowledge in EE.
That is something that I put effort into avoiding.  I try to help people who want to try things out, or understand science better.  I try to stay above the fray of name calling and feces flinging.  In dealing with you, a person I hold in respect, I take particular effort, whether that shows or not.
Quote

So my biggest beef was you making a formal conclusion about how and what my depicted diagram would actually result in before you knew what the pressure gauges were telling you,and then continue on later down the track to say that it is not you that needs second guess what my diagram is showing-after you have already told me how it was incorrect and wouldnt work the way i showed it.
Fair enough. 
Quote

The diagrem is not in any sort of scale MH,but it will do as i depicted.
@ Mark
If you look at the diagram,you can clearly work out what the gages are reading,which is gage pressure. Differential pressure is meassured between two individual sealed medium's-EG,you may have a hydrolic ram where you have a gauge on either side of the piston in the ram-but the medium must be sepperated,and as you can see in my diagram,the medium is not sepperated.

Hope that clears that up.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 12:41:19 AM
Chris:

Well, I shot down your "doers" argument and you are the one that is on the flat Earth.

The majority of your references did NOT support your assertions and I call it "Orwellian madness" when you state that they do.  Here you are trying to "teach" on your YouTube channel and it's revealed that you don't know what you are talking about.  I don't go onto a sewing forum and talk a bunch of BS about sewing because I barely know anything about sewing!!!  You should follow suit.  Don't become another Daniel Nunez.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 13, 2015, 12:59:18 AM
That's just


Quote
North and south don't even exist, they are just a naming convention.  You entered this thread believing that they existed and that there was a Bloch wall between the "north half" and the "south half" of a magnet.  Are you any wiser now I wonder or are you just going to continue bluffing your way through?

In all fairness MH,to use the terms north and south is just as correct as useing conventional current flow-even though it is the opposite to true current flow. Thing is,no one can tell us what the arrows show on the field lines that dont exist in everyday pictures of the magnetic field around a magnet-but every one is happy to except them. Some say the arrows drawn on the field lines are suppose to represent flow direction-->flow direction of what? Some say they represent the direction of force--> a magnetic field has no set direction of force.

It seems all well and good for the(so called) !know all! scientist to place lines around a magnet to represent the magnetic field,but when i draw my lines that sepperate the TWO different fields around a magnet ,and show where each individual field is strongest,every one of the guru's say thats crap. Well,to bad,my mapping of the two different fields dose form a figure 8 pattern relative to the magnetic field strength of each individual field-north and south.

Looking at the conventional magnetic field depiction below,it is clear that it is wrong. This crap about some flow of some thing that no one knows what the hell it is,is wrong. Something changes mid point in the field,and what ever that change is,it is opposite to that of the opposite side. So the arrows showing this continual unidirectional flow of some yet to be discovered matter-->are wrong. There are NO definitive explinations as to how or why a magnetic field dose what it dose-->as usual,there are only theories,and theories are only best guesses. The very same stands true for gravity--two masses atract each other ::). That's good,and is correct,but why?.  Us knowing all about magnetic fields because a CRT screen work's,or im on my computor because we know all about magnetic field's,is just pure rubbish. We know that 1 mass is attracted to another due to gravitational forces as well,and heavy shit stays on the ground because of this,but do we know how or why gravity dose what it dose-->no,but we still have stuff that works because of it.

So ,until some one can show(with actual proof) how and why a magnetic field dose what it dose,and what it actually is,then everyone has the right to put forth there argument,and no one has the right to say there wrong. Scientist make up shit all the time,only to find later that they got it all wrong-but it sticks anyway(conventional current flow).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 01:04:17 AM
MileHigh - There are two types of people in this world, talkers and doers!


Talkers can not come to any conclusions other than what they read!

Doers have Intuition, common-sense and a Native Intelligence. My experiments have led me to believe what I believe. No matter how much "Talk" you "Talk", simply, you have not provided a single bit of evidence to the contrary!
"Doing" without understanding may provide hours of entertainment but not enlightenment.  When one performs an experiment and arrives at conclusions that are contrary to thousands, even millions of prior experiments have confirmed, the "doer" has a huge amount of evidence to overcome.  When a "doer" refuses to even listen to explanations of the understanding that those prior experiments have led to, then the "doer" is the proverbial ostrich with its head stuck firmly in the ground.  Why should anyone regard the "doer's" experiments superior to the experiments of the past?
Quote

What sad and incomplete evidence you have come up with, I have proved, References, Video, supporting Documentation, that has shown you to be incorrect.
If you are still denying the reality that is indisputably in front of you then you are still doing a put on or worse.
Quote

You asked for a debate, you failed to support your debate! Period!

Others here have shown enough to prove there is something going on at the Equator, their work also supports my experiments!
No, you have been refuted at each turn, even by your own references.  All experimenters agree that when the Hall effect sensor is placed parallel to the dipole that the flux density smoothly changes from a maximum in one direction at one pole to an opposing maximum in the other direction at the opposite pole.  There is no boundary condition at the dipole midpoint.  There si therefore no evidence of a Bloch wall at the dipole midpoint.  There is no evidence of flux curling inward towards the dipole at the dipole midpoint.  Quite the opposite, the evidence all points to the conventional view that flux is most parallel to the dipole axis at the dipole midpoint.
Quote

MileHigh, You have your opinion, I have mine, You think I am wrong, I think youre wrong.

I wonder if you can agree, to disagree?
With a mountain of evidence gained over 200 years running against you, you are simply and irrefutably in the wrong.
Quote

1: In magnetism, a domain wall is an interface separating magnetic domains.
Yes
Quote
2: A magnetic domain is a region within a magnetic material which has uniform magnetization.
Yes
Quote
3: A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch.
Yes, and more usually between domains that are oriented at 90, 180, or 270 degrees to each other.
Quote

I believe there is a polarisation difference between North and South. How about you be an adult and stop criticizing others for their Intuition and grow up!
What is that supposed to mean?  If we cut a magnet in half we just end up with a weaker magnet.  If we slice a magnet into three, we just end up with three weaker magnets.  We do not end up with a south monopole, a regular magnet, and a north monopole.
Quote

Your Actions here have brought about definitions that fit with your Dogma! Don't like being defined, then here's an idea, live and let live! Be an Adult!
It is you who refuse to acknowledge the reality that you call dogma while hanging onto ideas that your own references refute.
Quote

If you're afraid of sailing off the edge of the Earth because of the Flat Earth Theory? Then Don't go Sailing!
But it is you who keep repeating things that goes against your own evidence.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 01:17:32 AM
Tinman:

Quote
n all fairness MH,to use the terms north and south is just as correct as useing conventional current flow-even though it is the opposite to true current flow. Thing is,no one can tell us what the arrows show on the field lines that dont exist in everyday pictures of the magnetic field around a magnet-but every one is happy to except them. Some say the arrows drawn on the field lines are suppose to represent flow direction-->flow direction of what? Some say they represent the direction of force--> a magnetic field has no set direction of force.

The analogy for north and south breaks down.  For example, when Mark showed two bar magnets with a small gap between them, you talked about the north and south fields in that gap.  The analogy breaks down, and sticking to the analogy was confusing you.  TK or Itsu followed the magnetic field from the north pole all the way to the south pole rotating the Hall sensor appropriately so it always showed the same "polarity" (really flux direction) and you objected to that.  You said the north can't go all the way to the south.  That's where the analogy broke down again again.  They were just following the direction of the flux, no north, no south, just the direction of the flux.  So the real thing to do is understand the convention for north and south and also understand magnetic flux and use the right terms appropriate to the situation.  Where is the "north" inside a toroid?  There is none, so you start out by talking about the flux inside a toroid and completely ignore the concepts of "north" and "south."  Talking about "north" and "south" in the context of a toroid would itself be confusing.

The magnetic field has direction, there is no "flow."   People see arrows and they start to think of flow.  The arrows only indicate direction.

You say "direction of what?"  If you are standing next to a hot stove, can you determine the direction of the infra-red heat if you are blindfolded?  You sure as hell can by moving around and noting the intensity of the radiation on your skin.  So the magnetic field has a definable direction at any point in space.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 13, 2015, 01:27:00 AM
Lets have a look at the picture below-for those that believe that there are not two different fields in a magnet.

We have two identical inductors with two long thin cores that protude into the magnetic field-at the same point either side of the center of the dipole(dipole-1.a pair of equal and oppositely charged or magnetized poles separated by a distance).The arrows on the magnetic field lines depict some sort of flow direction/or force direction of an unknown substance-yet to be discovered. Now these arrows pass through the core material in the same direction at the same point-BUT the sinewaves produced by the identical inductors are totally opposite-180 out of phase with each other. This clearly shows the arrow depiction/flow direction and force direction are not from one end of the dipole to the other. This shows us two opposite forces passing through the inductors cores. There IS two different fields around a magnet-not one,and these two fields/forces gradually cancel one another out as we get to the center of the magnets TWO pole ends-->the dipole.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 01:41:04 AM
In all fairness MH,to use the terms north and south is just as correct as useing conventional current flow-even though it is the opposite to true current flow. Thing is,no one can tell us what the arrows show on the field lines that dont exist in everyday pictures of the magnetic field around a magnet-but every one is happy to except them. Some say the arrows drawn on the field lines are suppose to represent flow direction-->flow direction of what? Some say they represent the direction of force--> a magnetic field has no set direction of force.

It seems all well and good for the(so called) !know all! scientist to place lines around a magnet to represent the magnetic field,but when i draw my lines that sepperate the TWO different fields around a magnet ,and show where each individual field is strongest,every one of the guru's say thats crap.
What's crap Tinman is to conflate contours that show one thing with contours that show something else.  If you want to make diagrams using line contours of flux density that's all fine and well provided that you:

1) Identify that flux density is what you are mapping and the convention your drawings use to map it.
2) You do not attempt to represent that the same mapping represents flux.
3) You do not attempt to represent that lines ordinary magnetic contour maps that each represent a quanta of flux instead represent a quanta of flux density.
Quote
Well,to bad,my mapping of the two different fields dose form a figure 8 pattern relative to the magnetic field strength of each individual field-north and south.

Looking at the conventional magnetic field depiction below,it is clear that it is wrong.
No it is correct.  You have interpreted that those maps mean or should represent flux density when the convention is that each line represents a quanta of flux. Since in your experiments you are often interested in how much force acts on something what you would like is a map of force on whatever it is you want to use:  a reed switch a plate another magnet etc.  Unfortunately because of the way that the flux of a magnetic field curves around, the force that you would like to know about depends not just on the magnet that you have but anything that you put near that magnet that has a permeability much greater than 1.  Consequently there is no way to generate a plot that would represent mechanical force acting on any object brought close to the magnet based on the magnet alone.  The situation may be dissatisfying or even frustrating to you, but that is a matter of nature, not man-made conventions.
Quote
This crap about some flow of some thing that no one knows what the hell it is,is wrong.
Magnetic lines are said to "flow" as a matter of convenience because analogies have been made to fluid flows. A compass needle aligns to the direction of "flow of magnetic wind" the way that a flag aligns to the flow of wind.
Quote
  Something changes mid point in the field,and what ever that change is,it is opposite to that of the opposite side.
There is no abrupt behavior at or near the middle of a dipole.  Look at all the experiments reported in this thread.  Whether you consider that a single magnet of say 5cm length is 500 0.1mm magnets stacked end to end, or just one magnet, the observable flux AND flux density behave as though it is one magnet where the flux curves smoothly from one pole to another.  The miracle of vector math is such that one gets the same behavior whether one stacks many thin magnets together or has one single magnet.  The lines one sees on a conventional diagram reflect the real observable flux.
Quote
So the arrows showing this continual unidirectional flow of some yet to be discovered matter-->are wrong.
I'm sorry but the lines of flux really do fairly represent quanta of magnetic flux.  If one had the time and patience, one could take a conventional field map and derive a corresponding map of flux density.
Quote
There are NO definitive explinations as to how or why a magnetic field dose what it dose-->as usual,there are only theories,and theories are only best guesses. The very same stands true for gravity--two masses atract each other ::). That's good,and is correct,but why?.  Us knowing all about magnetic fields because a CRT screen work's,or im on my computor because we know all about magnetic field's,is just pure rubbish. We know that 1 mass is attracted to another due to gravitational forces as well,and heavy shit stays on the ground because of this,but do we know how or why gravity dose what it dose-->no,but we still have stuff that works because of it.
Sure there is lots that we don't know.  That does not change in the least what we do know or how well we canuse what we know to make deadly accurate predictions as to what will happen when we use or manipulate things such as masses and magnets as we choose.
Quote

So ,until some one can show(with actual proof) how and why a magnetic field dose what it dose,and what it actually is,then everyone has the right to put forth there argument,and no one has the right to say there wrong. Scientist make up shit all the time,only to find later that they got it all wrong-but it sticks anyway(conventional current flow).
If one wishes to put forth an idea, the idea stands to be criticized by what it can or cannot accurately predict.  Conventional electromagnetics predict with stunning accuracy. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 01:51:22 AM
Tinman:

The short answer is that it is the same flux but the flux direction is different.  It's a basic fundamental property of magnetism.   In your diagram if the flux is increasing and the direction is from top to bottom in the left coil, then it is increasing and the direction is from bottom to top in the right coil, then when one coil outputs say -4 volts, then the other coil will output +4 volts.

It's exactly the same changing flux.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 01:56:59 AM
Lets have a look at the picture below-for those that believe that there are not two different fields in a magnet.

We have two identical inductors with two long thin cores that protude into the magnetic field-at the same point either side of the center of the dipole(dipole-1.a pair of equal and oppositely charged or magnetized poles separated by a distance).The arrows on the magnetic field lines depict some sort of flow direction/or force direction of an unknown substance-yet to be discovered. Now these arrows pass through the core material in the same direction at the same point-BUT the sinewaves produced by the identical inductors are totally opposite-180 out of phase with each other. This clearly shows the arrow depiction/flow direction and force direction are not from one end of the dipole to the other. This shows us two opposite forces passing through the inductors cores. There IS two different fields around a magnet-not one,and these two fields/forces gradually cancel one another out as we get to the center of the magnets TWO pole ends-->the dipole.
And yet in an electromagnet formed by a single turn of wire neither North nor South can be found.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 13, 2015, 02:44:20 AM
2) You do not attempt to represent that the same mapping represents flux.
...or magnetic flux density gradients.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 13, 2015, 04:14:23 AM
TinMan
something to read at Lunch


http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/How_Parallel_Path_Gets_Over_Unity/


Have a safe trip....
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 04:24:00 AM
TinMan
something to read at Lunch


http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/How_Parallel_Path_Gets_Over_Unity/


Have a safe trip....
Except that Flynn's parallel path does not get overunity.  Flynn's parallel path concept has been around for many years now.  No one has gotten overunity from it.  Do you want to know why?  It is because the calculations that suggest overunity are wrong.  The work required to double the flux density in a linear magnet from B1 to 2*B1 is: 3x the energy required to develop B1 in the first place, not 1X.  That means that if one prebiases a magnet to say 500G and then takes that magnet to 1000G  they must add three times the original energy.  As any school child should know:  1 + 3 = 4.  Those who thi followers of Flynn incorrectly think that the amount of work required to go from B1 to 2*B1 is the same as that required to go from zero to B1.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:00:48 AM
Chris:

Well, I shot down your "doers" argument and you are the one that is on the flat Earth.

The majority of your references did NOT support your assertions and I call it "Orwellian madness" when you state that they do.  Here you are trying to "teach" on your YouTube channel and it's revealed that you don't know what you are talking about.  I don't go onto a sewing forum and talk a bunch of BS about sewing because I barely know anything about sewing!!!  You should follow suit.  Don't become another Daniel Nunez.

MileHigh

MileHigh - You little sissy girl!

Pull your head in!

What I do when where and what time of the day has nothing to do with you!

Pull your head in! You hypocritical Ignoramus!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:05:03 AM
"Doing" without understanding may provide hours of entertainment but not enlightenment.  When one performs an experiment and arrives at conclusions that are contrary to thousands, even millions of prior experiments have confirmed, the "doer" has a huge amount of evidence to overcome.  When a "doer" refuses to even listen to explanations of the understanding that those prior experiments have led to, then the "doer" is the proverbial ostrich with its head stuck firmly in the ground.  Why should anyone regard the "doer's" experiments superior to the experiments of the past?If you are still denying the reality that is indisputably in front of you then you are still doing a put on or worse.No, you have been refuted at each turn, even by your own references.  All experimenters agree that when the Hall effect sensor is placed parallel to the dipole that the flux density smoothly changes from a maximum in one direction at one pole to an opposing maximum in the other direction at the opposite pole.  There is no boundary condition at the dipole midpoint.  There si therefore no evidence of a Bloch wall at the dipole midpoint.  There is no evidence of flux curling inward towards the dipole at the dipole midpoint.  Quite the opposite, the evidence all points to the conventional view that flux is most parallel to the dipole axis at the dipole midpoint.With a mountain of evidence gained over 200 years running against you, you are simply and irrefutably in the wrong.YesYesYes, and more usually between domains that are oriented at 90, 180, or 270 degrees to each other.What is that supposed to mean?  If we cut a magnet in half we just end up with a weaker magnet.  If we slice a magnet into three, we just end up with three weaker magnets.  We do not end up with a south monopole, a regular magnet, and a north monopole.It is you who refuse to acknowledge the reality that you call dogma while hanging onto ideas that your own references refute.But it is you who keep repeating things that goes against your own evidence.

Mark - And you just started to make a little impression on me! Now its all gone again!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 13, 2015, 05:10:53 AM
Mark - And you just started to make a little impression on me! Now its all gone again!

They do reside in the land of chaos and flux, dontcha know.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:13:23 AM
They do reside in the land of chaos and flux, dontcha know.

Regards...

Yes - the reason I call these two Oil Company Trolls! Where they get paid to ignorantly debate no matter what the topic! They cant even agree to disagree!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 05:16:47 AM
MileHigh - You little sissy girl!

Pull your head in!

What I do when where and what time of the day has nothing to do with you!

Pull your head in!

When I asked you what the "dashed blue lines" (your words) meant and you couldn't respond that was a particularly bad moment for you.  All of your credibility with respect to the subject matter was destroyed in that one single event.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:19:48 AM
@ALL;

The fact that a Magnetic Mono Pole has been predicted for some 83 Years and today created in a Lab proves the debate that MarkE and MileHigh are LYING to people about, shows that they argue ignorantly!

These two guys must be supporting the Other Side!!! Oil Company Trolls!!!

Again I reference: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab

Kind Regards

  Chris

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 05:21:59 AM
Yes - the reason I call these two Oil Company Trolls! Where they get paid to ignorantly debate no matter what the topic! They cant even agree to disagree!

You are just being a lousy schmuck when you talk trash like that.  You have enough brains to know that it is not true.  You are just being a "bad boy in search of a spanking" when you state that, delighted in your preening.

The "short blue lines" gaffe discredited you completely.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 05:23:47 AM
Quote
These two guys must be supporting the Other Side!!! Oil Company Trolls!!!

Don't get too excited now there Chris.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 13, 2015, 05:26:48 AM
Yes - the reason I call these two Oil Company Trolls! Where they get paid to ignorantly debate no matter what the topic! They cant even agree to disagree!

And by the looks of they're getting paid by the key stroke.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 05:28:15 AM
For Chris it's just a cheap morally bankrupt cop-out.  For you it's a totally different story.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:28:35 AM
You are just being a lousy schmuck when you talk trash like that.  You have enough brains to know that it is not true.  You are just being a "bad boy in search of a spanking" when you state that, delighted in your preening.

The "short blue lines" gaffe discredited you completely.

Hahaha your ignorance is so funny MH!!! Oil Company Troll!

I bet you're a short blue line?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 05:31:06 AM
More like your ignorance.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:31:47 AM
And by the looks of they're getting paid by the key stroke.

Regards...


Hahahaha - I think you're right Cap-Z-ro! Oil Company Trolls always do!

You know, the time in the day they are on here, they cant hold down real Jobs so they must be Oil Company Trolls!

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ignorant ones, who doesn't know of the A Vector Potential?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:35:55 AM
When I asked you what the "dashed blue lines" (your words) meant and you couldn't respond that was a particularly bad moment for you.  All of your credibility with respect to the subject matter was destroyed in that one single event.

MH - You're a dashed Blue Line that works for British Petroleum aren't you? I know exactly what the blue lines you drew are but it was NOT Consistent with the Linear Graph shown so the bad moment was for you my dear Oil Company Troll!   :o
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 05:36:50 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9YRgaVomZ4

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:40:46 AM
More like your ignorance.

How about I through you a ball - It has a string on, so as to reel in the Oil Company Troll.

You explain your Magical Blue Lines MH - We will see who comes out on top again!

I know what you meant, we will see, what brilliance you come up with this time!

A hint, its not Hedge Hogs!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 05:44:58 AM
No way.  I posted the diagram thinking that it would be self-explanatory.  I even said that when I made the posting.  You came up clueless when you were asked the question.  So you are just lying and bluffing right now.  Sorry!

Quote
but it was NOT Consistent with the Linear Graph shown

Thanks for showing yourself up again for how dumb and ignorant you can be for a person that claimed that he knew his stuff.  We never even saw AC's setup.  There is no reason that the picture I plucked off of Google Images would have the same response as AC's magnet.  Nor was there even a response curve shown, I just showed a picture.  So how can you "compare response curves" when there wasn't even two response curves to compare?  On top of that, we have no clue how consistently AC moved the Hall sensor along the magnet and the data he posted showed a time base.

So, you made a comparison when it was not legitimate from the get-go and there was no comparable graph to compare anyways!

I said on another thread that the average experimenter around here is barely functioning at a high school level and you demonstrate it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 05:47:28 AM
No way.  I posted the diagram thinking that it would be self-explanatory.  I even said that when I made the posting.  You came up clueless when you were asked the question.  So you are just lying and bluffing right now.  Sorry!


Hahahahaha More LIES MileHigh!!!!!!! You're cute! Do you have flashing Lights too? Or is that extra?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 05:55:20 AM
Yes - the reason I call these two Oil Company Trolls! Where they get paid to ignorantly debate no matter what the topic! They cant even agree to disagree!
It's a funny rationalization you use to knowingly lie.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 06:07:00 AM
It's a funny rationalization you use to knowingly lie.

MarkE - Is It? Is it Really? Who do you work for, BP is British Petroleum you know! Or is it BP BS Inc?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 06:10:43 AM
It's a funny rationalization you use to knowingly lie.

This might be why you "Prefer" the Grid over all other independent Power Disto Networks? Oh my, its Consolidated Edison that you work for isn't it!

Hahaha - seriously gotta laugh at the obvious!  ::)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 06:15:16 AM

Hahahahaha More LIES MileHigh!!!!!!! You're cute! Do you have flashing Lights too? Or is that extra?

Here you go EMJunkie:

Post #637 you say this:  "I wonder what the Zero Indication near the Central Point between the Poles is showing?"

How can you not know why there is a zero indication?  Anybody that understands this stuff and has a few brain cells working would expect to see a zero indication.  But you are obviously not in this class.

In post #640, I say this:  "Take a look at the attached diagram and all of your questions are answered" and I post the image of the magnet filing pattern with the blue lines.

Then in post #645 I say this:  "Can you explain what is going on with those broken blue lines?"

In post #646 you say this:  "MileHigh - Unfortunately this is YOUR Assumption. I have nothing to do with your assumptions!"

If you knew what you were talking about you would have stated the answer in your post #646 but you clearly didn't.  It was a Litmus test question, you sensed it was a Litmus test question, and you failed to answer it.  Bluff away all you want, the truth is you don't know your stuff when it comes to magnetics and you just bluff your way through because most of the time your YouTube audience knows even less than you and you can get away with it.  However, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2015, 06:18:34 AM
@ALL;

The fact that a Magnetic Mono Pole has been predicted for some 83 Years and today created in a Lab proves the debate that MarkE and MileHigh are LYING to people about, shows that they argue ignorantly!

These two guys must be supporting the Other Side!!! Oil Company Trolls!!!

Again I reference: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jan/30/magnetic-monopoles-seen-in-the-lab)

Kind Regards

  Chris

Did you even bother to read the article in your reference, or the original article in Nature? Of course you did not, or you wouldn't be posting the link here... SINCE IT REFUTES YOUR CLAIM and more especially ... the original article was written by people who fully endorse the conventional picture of _magnetic field lines_ .
Why don't you sent the authors an email, asking whether the conventional picture or the "peanut waist" picture is correct.  I know why not, and so does everyone else reading here.

Here's a little quote from the article you linked:
Quote
An ordinary bar magnet consists of both a north and a south pole; if the magnet is cut in two, then each of the resulting halves will also be bipolar. In fact, no matter how many times the magnet is divided, the north and south poles remain coupled – even as far down as individual atoms, which themselves act like tiny magnets. This is reflected in Maxwell's equations, which say that isolated positive and negative electric charges exist but isolated magnetic charges do not.
------------
 Peter Holdsworth (http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/peter.holdsworth/Site/Home_Page_of_Peter_Holdsworth.html), a condensed-matter physicist at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Lyon, praises the work as "an exquisite application of nanotechnology, cold atoms, high-powered computing and clever theory". He points out that the US–Finnish team has not proved the existence of magnetic monopoles, but he thinks the researchers have provided experimental confirmation of Dirac's mathematics. "It is an important result and could lead to many other analogous results," he says. "Will it help particle physicists to find real monopoles? Probably not, but it should encourage them to keep looking."

So, we can see very clearly that you have MISREPRESENTED what is contained in the PhysicsWorld article and the actual paper in Nature to which it refers.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 06:23:13 AM
If you knew what you were talking about you would have stated the answer in your post #646 but you clearly didn't.  It was a Litmus test question, you sensed it was a Litmus test question, and you failed to answer it.  Bluff away all you want, the truth is you don't know your stuff when it comes to magnetics and you just bluff your way through because most of the time your YouTube audience knows even less than you and you can get away with it.  However, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Again MileHigh - Ramblings of a Crazy Person.

The truth is, you know Nada, Zip, Zilch about Science! You BS People here all day long. The very first reply to this topic you received was a negative one! No one trusts your Piffle and Bull Dust MileHigh.

Your Imaginary Ride Experiment is all you have got and its again your very own assumption! That's the only thing you're good at here, Assuming!

Piffle is your territory! Along with Imaginary Experiments!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 13, 2015, 06:28:50 AM
You are caving and clutching at straws.  You are even copying what I am saying about you and trying to say it about me.

Chris, I said "v = L di/dt" to you and got a virtual blank stare back from you.  The jig is up.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 06:33:10 AM
Did you even bother to read the article in your reference, or the original article in Nature? Of course you did not, or you wouldn't be posting the link here... SINCE IT REFUTES YOUR CLAIM and more especially ... the original article was written by people who fully endorse the conventional picture of _magnetic field lines_ .
Why don't you sent the authors an email, asking whether the conventional picture or the "peanut waist" picture is correct.  I know why not, and so does everyone else reading here.

Here's a little quote from the article you linked:
So, we can see very clearly that you have MISREPRESENTED what is contained in the PhysicsWorld article and the actual paper in Nature to which it refers.

TinselKoala - Your Assumption! I am claiming nothing here, you MileHigh and MarkE are.

I don't doubt Science! I doubt Conventional Science that has been proven Wrong by Modern Science!!!

If it does not hold, then its wrong!

Physics Professors today are always saying the same thing, well this holds for this but not for that.

TK - you seriously need to think outside the box. I have been here under different name for some 10 years odd and you were here back then!!! What's going on, not gotten any further ahead!!! Got nothing STILL!

Your posts are like MileHighs, nothing but criticism and Bull Dust! You like MileHigh will still be here in another 10 years and will still have NOTHING!!!!

I have seen some of your experiment, your ability to "DO" is not the problem, its your Intellectual HandiCap!!!

I bet you do the same experiments all day long! Same ones, day after day, looking for something but blind to whats right infront of your face!

TK - You used to have my respect. But do you know what, Youre just an overunity.com number! Today that number is: 11167 - This number is definitely not showing your Intelligence!

So, to answer your stupidity, yes I did read the article! What does it mean to have a Mono Pole sitting in free space? Do you want me to spell this for you? MONOPOLE, MONOPOLE, MONOPOLE

OMG HOW sparse is this field!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 13, 2015, 06:48:03 AM
@MH
Quote
We never even saw AC's setup.  There is no reason that the picture I plucked off of Google Images would have the same response as AC's magnet.  Nor was there even a response curve shown, I just showed a picture.  So how can you "compare response curves" when there wasn't even two response curves to compare?  On top of that, we have no clue how consistently AC moved the Hall sensor along the magnet and the data he posted showed a time base.


Good point, I used a plastic straight edge and moved my probe at as uniform a speed as possible. In the other plot I held the probe in a clamp then used two pieces of plastic around the center to spin it perpendicular to the NS axis.


I'm still working on the new setup which I will run by you guys now. I built a new probe with two linear ratiometric hall sensors 90 deg apart to capture the probe x,y axis (vertical,horizontal sensors). The probe output goes to my Arduino/Labview interface where I then plot two separate xy intensity graphs(vertical/horizontal probe) with a third xy intensity graph representing the difference between the two.


The xy intensity graph simply uses the probe position, xy coordinates, and the probe output y to plot a 2D picture with the probe value y determining the color of each point. I'm using a linear servo arrangement my interface controls to scan line by line within a 3" x 3" area with a resolution of 1023 x 1023 points. So we should have a pretty solid picture of both the x and y axis of the probe output as well as the difference between the two.


This is just speculation but I'm hoping to see a line where the probe xy values sum to zero which should be obvious in the third graph. If probe rotation was showing this then this arrangement should prove it in my opinion. All this debate about what people think is wonderful however I want to know for myself.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 06:50:10 AM
You are caving and clutching at straws.  You are even copying what I am saying about you and trying to say it about me.

Chris, I said "v = L di/dt" to you and got a virtual blank stare back from you.  The jig is up.

Hahahaha - Milehigh, You have a fantastic ability at copy paste, maybe the Oil Companies should deduct from your letter for letter pay check! I think you should ring and re-negotiate a deal with them! Quick, before they find out!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 06:57:22 AM
MarkE - Is It? Is it Really? Who do you work for, BP is British Petroleum you know! Or is it BP BS Inc?
EMJ it really reflects poorly on you that you deliberately spread disparging lies.  Is that something exclusive to your internet behavior or do you go around doing that to:  your coworkers, your neighbors, and your family as well?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 07:04:07 AM
@MH

Good point, I used a plastic straight edge and moved my probe at as uniform a speed as possible. In the other plot I held the probe in a clamp then used two pieces of plastic around the center to spin it perpendicular to the NS axis.


I'm still working on the new setup which I will run by you guys now. I built a new probe with two linear ratiometric hall sensors 90 deg apart to capture the probe x,y axis (vertical,horizontal sensors). The probe output goes to my Arduino/Labview interface where I then plot two separate xy intensity graphs(vertical/horizontal probe) with a third xy intensity graph representing the difference between the two.


The xy intensity graph simply uses the probe position, xy coordinates, and the probe output y to plot a 2D picture with the probe value y determining the color of each point. I'm using a linear servo arrangement my interface controls to scan line by line within a 3" x 3" area with a resolution of 1023 x 1023 points. So we should have a pretty solid picture of both the x and y axis of the probe output as well as the difference between the two.


This is just speculation but I'm hoping to see a line where the probe xy values sum to zero which should be obvious in the third graph. If probe rotation was showing this then this arrangement should prove it in my opinion. All this debate about what people think is wonderful however I want to know for myself.


AC
Since you can't make the sensor elements intersect, I question the value of trying to build a two sensor rig.  If you want to do something that can provide valuable data then being able to precisely orient parallel or perpendicular to the magnet, locate repeatably, and where you want to probe I think are the best places to put your effort.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 13, 2015, 07:21:01 AM
@EMJ
Quote
you seriously need to think outside the box. I have been here under different name for some 10 years odd and you were here back then!!! What's going on, not gotten any further ahead!!! Got nothing STILL!


There lies the problem doesn't it?, information and knowledge without the creativity to apply it in a meaningful way means nothing. It reminds me of the person who memorized the whole Encyclopedia Britannica, I mean the whole damn thing, but what does he do now?. Why he tours and writes books about memorizing the Encyclopedia Britannica, lol. All that information and yet he doesn't have a clue what to do with it which is unfortunate.


Don't get me wrong, knowledge has it's place and it can streamline the learning process however it does not guarantee anything. If we have to draw a progress line I think it would be as follows---information, knowledge, understanding then creative application of that understanding. It's that last little part which is most important in my opinion because that is the only part which translates into real progress.


AC


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2015, 07:25:16 AM
TinselKoala - Your Assumption! I am claiming nothing here, you MileHigh and MarkE are.

I don't doubt Science! I doubt Conventional Science that has been proven Wrong by Modern Science!!!

If it does not hold, then its wrong!

Physics Professors today are always saying the same thing, well this holds for this but not for that.

TK - you seriously need to think outside the box. I have been here under different name for some 10 years odd and you were here back then!!! What's going on, not gotten any further ahead!!! Got nothing STILL!

Your posts are like MileHighs, nothing but criticism and Bull Dust! You like MileHigh will still be here in another 10 years and will still have NOTHING!!!!

I have seen some of your experiment, your ability to "DO" is not the problem, its your Intellectual HandiCap!!!

I bet you do the same experiments all day long! Same ones, day after day, looking for something but blind to whats right infront of your face!

TK - You used to have my respect. But do you know what, Youre just an overunity.com number! Today that number is: 11167 - This number is definitely not showing your Intelligence!

So, to answer your stupidity, yes I did read the article! What does it mean to have a Mono Pole sitting in free space? Do you want me to spell this for you? MONOPOLE, MONOPOLE, MONOPOLE

OMG HOW sparse is this field!!!
You claimed in your original reference to the article that the researchers had created a magnetic monopole. The article however, as I have shown with my quoted excerpt, specifically states that they have NOT done so, they have merely created an _analogue_, that is, something that is _like_ a monopole under certain very specific conditions and when looked at in a very specific way.  They certainly do NOT have a "Mono Pole sitting in free space". Are you having a problem with your reading comprehension? Anyone here can read the article for themselves and see that your claims about it what it says are false.

Go ahead, email the authors and ask them about the magnetic field line picture surrounding a permanent magnet. You dare not... because _even you_ know what they will say.

I have been a member of this forum for quite some time, and I've only had this one username that whole time. While you have had several... how come?
Has it been ten years? I actually don't know, but I first started posting in response to the Archer Quinn claims of his "Sword of God" magnet assisted gravity wheel nonsense. Are you a supporter of Archer Quinn, perhaps? A very large number of my posts came in the long running argument and debunking of Rosemary Ainslie's false claims, lying "experimental" reports and her continued insulting badgering of Poynt99, MileHigh and others as well as me. Are you a supporter of the proven liar and false claimant Rosemary Ainslie? Another large set of my posts had to do with Wayne Travis and his false claims of a "self running" buoyancy device, with his long string of broken promises and failures to achieve any credible demonstration of his claims. Are you a supporter of Wayne Travis?  And anyone who actually knows what I post about can direct you to my posts concerning the better-than-Bedini MHOP pulse motor, the Steorn Orbo/Orbette Core Effect motor research, the several unique Joule Thiefs that I have presented, the struggle to educate people about the FTW QEG scam.... etc etc.  My track record here is clear: I am probably the _most often insulted_ poster on this forum, because I tell the truth about BS when I see it.  You can "bet" whatever you like with whomever you like, but you have no idea what I do all day, day after day, that's for sure, and you can provide no evidence for your literally _crazy_ and false assertions about me.
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 13, 2015, 07:35:56 AM
@Mark
Quote
Since you can't make the sensor elements intersect, I question the value of trying to build a two sensor rig.  If you want to do something that can provide valuable data then being able to precisely orient parallel or perpendicular to the magnet, locate repeatably, and where you want to probe I think are the best places to put your effort.


Yes that was my first thought before I built the probe however I thought it was easier to simply introduce an offset into the code. All the values are temporarily stored in an array so it's no big deal to introduce an offset (user defined constant) during calibration so that the sensor planes line up exactly before the output to the graphs.


Super easy, take the Y coordinate +/- whatever the resolution of one line is and you end up with a vertical offset which will be the sensor plane offset. Simple input box to define the x and y offset on the interface. click, tap, tap, click done.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 08:30:13 AM
@EMJ

There lies the problem doesn't it?, information and knowledge without the creativity to apply it in a meaningful way means nothing. It reminds me of the person who memorized the whole Encyclopedia Britannica, I mean the whole damn thing, but what does he do now?. Why he tours and writes books about memorizing the Encyclopedia Britannica, lol. All that information and yet he doesn't have a clue what to do with it which is unfortunate.


Don't get me wrong, knowledge has it's place and it can streamline the learning process however it does not guarantee anything. If we have to draw a progress line I think it would be as follows---information, knowledge, understanding then creative application of that understanding. It's that last little part which is most important in my opinion because that is the only part which translates into real progress.


AC


Hey AC - For sure! Native Intelligence vs Memory!

Absolutely! Science is very important! It is what we understand of Nature.

I know youre here for the philosophy, not quite so much the Science, but I guess from a point of view from the outside, the two really do hold hands?

Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 08:33:55 AM
You claimed in your original reference to the article that the researchers had created a magnetic monopole. The article however, as I have shown with my quoted excerpt, specifically states that they have NOT done so, they have merely created an _analogue_, that is, something that is _like_ a monopole under certain very specific conditions and when looked at in a very specific way.  They certainly do NOT have a "Mono Pole sitting in free space". Are you having a problem with your reading comprehension? Anyone here can read the article for themselves and see that your claims about it what it says are false.

Go ahead, email the authors and ask them about the magnetic field line picture surrounding a permanent magnet. You dare not... because _even you_ know what they will say.

I have been a member of this forum for quite some time, and I've only had this one username that whole time. While you have had several... how come?
Has it been ten years? I actually don't know, but I first started posting in response to the Archer Quinn claims of his "Sword of God" magnet assisted gravity wheel nonsense. Are you a supporter of Archer Quinn, perhaps? A very large number of my posts came in the long running argument and debunking of Rosemary Ainslie's false claims, lying "experimental" reports and her continued insulting badgering of Poynt99, MileHigh and others as well as me. Are you a supporter of the proven liar and false claimant Rosemary Ainslie? Another large set of my posts had to do with Wayne Travis and his false claims of a "self running" buoyancy device, with his long string of broken promises and failures to achieve any credible demonstration of his claims. Are you a supporter of Wayne Travis?  And anyone who actually knows what I post about can direct you to my posts concerning the better-than-Bedini MHOP pulse motor, the Steorn Orbo/Orbette Core Effect motor research, the several unique Joule Thiefs that I have presented, the struggle to educate people about the FTW QEG scam.... etc etc.  My track record here is clear: I am probably the _most often insulted_ poster on this forum, because I tell the truth about BS when I see it.  You can "bet" whatever you like with whomever you like, but you have no idea what I do all day, day after day, that's for sure, and you can provide no evidence for your literally _crazy_ and false assertions about me.

TinselKoala,

I Quote: "Hall's group has reproduced that vortex in a Bose–Einstein condensate of ultracold rubidium atoms. The condensate is a single matter wave and stands in for the electron cloud in Dirac's formulation. To reproduce the monopole, the researchers applied a real, external magnetic field to the condensate to orient the constituent atoms in such a way that they create a "synthetic" magnetic field inside the condensate. There is a "one-to-one correspondence" between that synthetic field and the field that would be produced by a magnetic monopole, Hall explains. "You could draw exactly the same field lines in the synthetic field and the locus of the monopole is where those field lines spring from," he says."

Just a bit more for you:

"To show that they really had produced a Dirac monopole, the researchers shone a laser beam through the condensate. The beam created a "shadowgraph", in which the shadow cast by the atoms in the sample was pierced by a narrow strip of light."

I wonder why you would dispute that this "Made in the Lab Monopole" is a Monopole?

I wonder who might have dyslexia?

Comprehension is in plain words right in front of us now isn't it!
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 13, 2015, 09:12:06 AM
So finally we get to an agreement:  You have been mapping flux density with representations the rest of the world uses to map flux.  Do you now withdraw your objections to the truth of the representations of flux as normally used?Fair or not, the statement that AC offered was to me so preposterous that I think it deserved the LOL.  I think that if you go back through even just this thread you will find that I have been very patient with you.  I believe that I have focused on the technical issues.  MH speaks for himself.  He is far more concerned with who calls who names than I am.  There are on these threads some posters who behave very poorly, and generally I simply don't bother with them.That is something that I put effort into avoiding.  I try to help people who want to try things out, or understand science better.  I try to stay above the fray of name calling and feces flinging.  In dealing with you, a person I hold in respect, I take particular effort, whether that shows or not.Fair enough.
I withdraw nothing, and im no where finished.
Please take a good look again at the diagrams that are suppose to represent the magnetic fields, and tell me that you see nothing wrong there.
Some questions
The arrows tell us what?
The physical force from each pole is caused by what
I would like you to provide absolute proof within your own test via video Mark, that your answers are absolute.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 09:18:29 AM
I withdraw nothing, and im no where finished.
Please take a good look again at the diagrams that are suppose to represent the magnetic fields, and tell me that you see nothing wrong there.
Some questions
The arrows tell us what?
The physical force from each pole is caused by what
I would like you to provide absolute proof within your own test via video Mark, that your answers are absolute.

@Tinman - Don't BOW to these Backsides!

They have nothing, no common-sense, no Science, No Experiments, no Native Intelligence and not a single bit of Intuition!

Dont bow to them, they are wrong and being utterly stupid about the whole thing, beyond stupid, its as if they are getting paid to bring it all tumbling down!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 10:03:29 AM
@Mark

Yes that was my first thought before I built the probe however I thought it was easier to simply introduce an offset into the code. All the values are temporarily stored in an array so it's no big deal to introduce an offset (user defined constant) during calibration so that the sensor planes line up exactly before the output to the graphs.


Super easy, take the Y coordinate +/- whatever the resolution of one line is and you end up with a vertical offset which will be the sensor plane offset. Simple input box to define the x and y offset on the interface. click, tap, tap, click done.


AC
That sounds reasonable.  The only other variable will be the difference in response between the two sensors used. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 10:18:24 AM
@EMJ

There lies the problem doesn't it?, information and knowledge without the creativity to apply it in a meaningful way means nothing. It reminds me of the person who memorized the whole Encyclopedia Britannica, I mean the whole damn thing, but what does he do now?. Why he tours and writes books about memorizing the Encyclopedia Britannica, lol. All that information and yet he doesn't have a clue what to do with it which is unfortunate.


Don't get me wrong, knowledge has it's place and it can streamline the learning process however it does not guarantee anything. If we have to draw a progress line I think it would be as follows---information, knowledge, understanding then creative application of that understanding. It's that last little part which is most important in my opinion because that is the only part which translates into real progress.


AC

IMO, the most important research skills are:  1) Critical thinking, 2) The ability to search for relevant existing information, 3) The presence of mind and humility to ask questions.  Somewhere down the list is the ability to personally set-up and conduct experiments.  Many things that we want to know about will be well beyond our individual means to directly research.  Creativity is very useful but it is also down the list.  Those who master the criitical basic skills and are also creative thinkers are able to take jumps where linear thinkers must plod.  Linear thinkers who master the basic skills are equipped to make advances.  Those who do not master the basic skills but are creative can have interesting ideas but are unequipped to sift gems from dross.  Those who think linearly but who do not master the basic skills tend to regurgitate what they are taught without consideration for the fact that mostly correct is not totally correct.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 10:37:10 AM
I withdraw nothing, and im no where finished.
Please take a good look again at the diagrams that are suppose to represent the magnetic fields, and tell me that you see nothing wrong there.
Some questions
The arrows tell us what?
The physical force from each pole is caused by what
I would like you to provide absolute proof within your own test via video Mark, that your answers are absolute.
Several have explained and you can easily research for yourself to determine that the lines in a magnetic field diagram each represent a quanta of flux.  You may wish to object that such diagrams aren't helpful to you, but your argument that the archetypical such drawing of the field around a dipole does not fairly represent the flux has been refuted many times over.  The diagrams that you have presented with their figure eight shapes would be somewhat representative of flux density, if the proximity of the lines to the magnet is intended to represent flux density.

The arrows in a magnetic field diagram tell us orientation.  If we place a magnetized dipole in the field that is free to rotate in the plane of the lines, the arrows tell us which way that dipole will align.

When you say physical force, do you mean to say "mechanical force"?  If you do, what mechanical force do you refer to?  Is it the force on some glob of highly permeable material?  Is it the torque on a highly permeable dipole?

I am not a You Tuber.  I don't shoot videos.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 13, 2015, 10:42:35 AM




NoBulls Bar magnets [one over the other] a few pages back  ,a twist ??


Nice example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9lsaGtRBGc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9lsaGtRBGc)

and yes There is research Too

http://www.science.uva.nl/research/cmp/qem/research_projects/domainwall.html (http://www.science.uva.nl/research/cmp/qem/research_projects/domainwall.html)



last is Dutch, like "Herr Dr Lewin"


thx
Chet
ps


and thx Johan !:'}
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 12:59:54 PM



NoBulls Bar magnets [one over the other] a few pages back  ,a twist ??


Nice example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9lsaGtRBGc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9lsaGtRBGc)

and yes There is research Too

http://www.science.uva.nl/research/cmp/qem/research_projects/domainwall.html (http://www.science.uva.nl/research/cmp/qem/research_projects/domainwall.html)



last is Dutch, like "Herr Dr Lewin"


thx
Chet
ps


and thx Johan !:'}
And all of that should tell you that EMJ's claims of a Bloch wall dividing a dipole magnet are ridiculous.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 13, 2015, 02:29:56 PM
@Tinman - Don't BOW to these Backsides!

Kind Regards

  Chris
I BOW to no man,as i believe all are equal--> and i expect the same in return.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 13, 2015, 03:09:18 PM

A very large number of my posts came in the long running argument and debunking of Rosemary Ainslie's false claims, lying "experimental" reports and her continued insulting badgering of Poynt99, MileHigh and others as well as me. Are you a supporter of the proven liar and false claimant Rosemary Ainslie? Another large set of my posts had to do with Wayne Travis and his false claims of a "self running" buoyancy device, with his long string of broken promises and failures to achieve any credible demonstration of his claims. Are you a supporter of Wayne Travis?  And anyone who actually knows what I post about can direct you to my posts concerning the better-than-Bedini MHOP pulse motor, the Steorn Orbo/Orbette Core Effect motor research, the several unique Joule Thiefs that I have presented, the struggle to educate people about the FTW QEG scam.... etc etc.  My track record here is clear: I am probably the _most often insulted_ poster on this forum, because I tell the truth about BS when I see it.  You can "bet" whatever you like with whomever you like, but you have no idea what I do all day, day after day, that's for sure, and you can provide no evidence for your literally _crazy_ and false assertions about me.
This is the truth EMJ,and i was here for the Ainslie saga from the start-->that was a hoot for sure.

Although we may not agree on all things all the time,the 3 above mentioned have my upmost respect. As far as disagreeing some times with what one another may think is right or wrong,well the world would be a pretty boaring stale place to be in if we all thought the same.

We all have our win's every now and then,but you will find MH,poynt and TK nail it 99.99% of the time-->hell,TK even had to correct MarkE there once not to far back in this thread,and i even got to correct MH once(i believe was also in this thread?),and that came about from experiments and bench time-->i think thats the only one for me but with these 3 guy's lol.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 13, 2015, 03:33:23 PM
Several have explained and you can easily research for yourself to determine that the lines in a magnetic field diagram each represent a quanta of flux.  You may wish to object that such diagrams aren't helpful to you, but your argument that the archetypical such drawing of the field around a dipole does not fairly represent the flux has been refuted many times over.  The diagrams that you have presented with their figure eight shapes would be somewhat representative of flux density, if the proximity of the lines to the magnet is intended to represent flux density.

The arrows in a magnetic field diagram tell us orientation.  If we place a magnetized dipole in the field that is free to rotate in the plane of the lines, the arrows tell us which way that dipole will align.

When you say physical force, do you mean to say "mechanical force"?  If you do, what mechanical force do you refer to?  Is it the force on some glob of highly permeable material?  Is it the torque on a highly permeable dipole?

I am not a You Tuber.  I don't shoot videos.
Ha,i was just reading your last post,and i like this bit-Quote: Those who think linearly but who do not master the basic skills tend to regurgitate what they are taught without consideration for the fact that mostly correct is not totally correct.

Anyway,back to the question.
Quote
When you say physical force, do you mean to say "mechanical force"?  If you do, what mechanical force do you refer to?  Is it the force on some glob of highly permeable material?  Is it the torque on a highly permeable dipole?

So here is what we need to know in regards to force. What physical structure is it that provides a pulling force between a magnet and say a piece of iron-what reaches out of the magnet to retract that piece of iron back to it(the magnet).

What do you believe these two opposite forces are that can exert a physical force toward magnetically active materials(materials that react to a magnetic fields presence).E.G,are they oppositely charged particals?.

I believe you made reference to the wind not so long back,and how we cant see it,but we can feel it and see it exert a force on tree's-and things like that. But with that,we can fully explain how wind is created,and we can give exact ratio's of what gasses make the air that moves to become wind. So we need the same information about the magnetic fields that form a dipole,and like the wind,the explinations have to be clear and precise to be accepted.

It is all well and good to say-we know the magnetic field is what we think it is,because computors and CRT monitors work the way they do. Well my car has a V8 engine,and that engine provides the needed energy to propel my car down the road at 110kph. Thing is,my mate up the road has a car that also dose 110kph down the road,and his motor is a rotary engine. It opperates on the same principle,but is of a completely different design. Then there is the electric car-altogether different motor design and a different type of fuel,but guess what-it still pushes a car down the road at 110kph.

So before you have the right to dispell anyone's thoughts/theories about magnetic fields,you need to provide absolute information about why and how a magnetic field dose what it dose-explain it as clearly and correctly as we can the wind.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 04:14:57 PM
Ha,i was just reading your last post,and i like this bit-Quote: Those who think linearly but who do not master the basic skills tend to regurgitate what they are taught without consideration for the fact that mostly correct is not totally correct.

Anyway,back to the question.
So here is what we need to know in regards to force. What physical structure is it that provides a pulling force between a magnet and say a piece of iron-what reaches out of the magnet to retract that piece of iron back to it(the magnet).

What do you believe these two opposite forces are that can exert a physical force toward magnetically active materials(materials that react to a magnetic fields presence).E.G,are they oppositely charged particals?.

I believe you made reference to the wind not so long back,and how we cant see it,but we can feel it and see it exert a force on tree's-and things like that. But with that,we can fully explain how wind is created,and we can give exact ratio's of what gasses make the air that moves to become wind. So we need the same information about the magnetic fields that form a dipole,and like the wind,the explinations have to be clear and precise to be accepted.
That wind analogy was not mine. 
Quote


It is all well and good to say-we know the magnetic field is what we think it is,because computors and CRT monitors work the way they do. Well my car has a V8 engine,and that engine provides the needed energy to propel my car down the road at 110kph. Thing is,my mate up the road has a car that also dose 110kph down the road,and his motor is a rotary engine. It opperates on the same principle,but is of a completely different design. Then there is the electric car-altogether different motor design and a different type of fuel,but guess what-it still pushes a car down the road at 110kph.

So before you have the right to dispell anyone's thoughts/theories about magnetic fields,you need to provide absolute information about why and how a magnetic field dose what it dose-explain it as clearly and correctly as we can the wind.
No, when one wishes to argue against established understanding it is up to the challenger to provide convincing evidence.

As human beings we do not have any absolute knowledge.  Philosphers get to argue about such matters while never attaining absolute knowledge anymore than anyone else.   We can absolutely predict with deadly accuracy: static electric, static magnetic, and electrodynamic behaviors to incredibly high accuracies.   That we are able to do so, very strongly suggests that we have a very strong grasp of how the elements interact.  If someone wants to make a dent in the set of beliefs that allow us to do this, then they need to find at least one situation where their new idea makes better predictions, while making equally accurate predictions as established beliefs in all other cases.  It is a very tall order.  So no, I reject the idea that one has to have a fundamental answer to the theory of everything in order to adhere to established scientific beliefs: IE physical laws.  To paraphrase Dr. Sheehan:  "Laws are laws until they aren't."  Come up with a case of where the laws fail.  Then come up with a better answer.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 13, 2015, 05:59:40 PM
Bar magnets [one over the other] a few pages back  ,a twist ?? 
Nice example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9lsaGtRBGc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9lsaGtRBGc)
So you noticed the analogy between turning magnets and turning domains in a soft ferromagnetic.
Too bad TinselKoala did not reply to this message (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg432167/#msg432167) about a similar subject.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 13, 2015, 06:32:09 PM
@Mark
Quote
"Laws are laws until they aren't."  Come up with a case of where the laws
fail.  Then come up with a better answer.
Personally I have found the laws almost always apply however many people have failed to consider the context in which they are applied. For instance a drop of water cannot climb up a wall against the force of Gravity, it is impossible and violates many known laws of science. Yet this is exactly what one scientist did using an engineered material (nano-material) and he did not break any laws doing it. In fact his experiment did not violate any laws but in fact proved them on that scale.

My magnetic bearing is another example and when I told some people I built a 99% passive magnetic bearing based solely on attractive forces they said it cannot be done and violates the laws of science. It doesn't violate the laws of science or Earnshaws theorem because it is 99% passive not 100% and again basically proves the laws but in a completely different context than most would expect.  Thus in my mind it was never the laws which were ever in question but a persons ability to understand the context in which the laws may be applied.
At which point we could go one step further and say the laws we know may always apply however we may never know the infinite number of ways in which the context of there application could change. Almost anything is still possible however it is not a matter of breaking a law but how we interpret and apply it from our own perspective.
The Down wind faster than the wind technology is another perfect example because I didn't see that one coming. I mean I have decades of experience researching and experimenting in aerodynamics but that one caught me completely off guard no matter how obvious it was after the fact.

AC
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 13, 2015, 06:55:28 PM
   If the core of the Earth is a plasma and the plasma is spinning would the free electrons comprising the outer sheath of the plasma generate a magnetic field?.   It looks to me like the Earth is nothing more than a little bubble of Sun stuff.   Some plasma, when the plasma sphere of the sun was much larger, that got swirling and became magnetically propelled from a portion of the shrinking plasmasphere of the younger sun.   Now she's cooling off and skinned over with atoms.  The plasma current just happens to be aligned with the surface rotation and meanders independent of the rotation of the atomic stuff on the confining surface we live on.  Periodically the shear zone between the rotating plasma increases in viscosity.  This links the surface with the plasma and aligns the plasma rotation with the surface rotation at various polar angles.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2015, 07:01:19 PM
So you noticed the analogy between turning magnets and turning domains in a soft ferromagnetic.
Too bad TinselKoala did not reply to this message (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg432167/#msg432167) about a similar subject.
I'll reply now if you like. My statement was a response to another post where it was claimed that storing energy in magnetic fields was inefficient. I replied by stating that in the general case it was actually very efficient and I gave some examples. Then I attempted to agree with the original claim by stating:
Quote
Storing energy by magnetizing  _permanent magnets_ and attempting to recover that stored energy is inefficient.
You responded with a situation that has nothing at all to do with magnetizing permanent magnets and recovering that stored energy, but rather simply shows how moving permanent magnets from one orientation to another within a solenoid stores and recovers energy. You get to do that _once_ in your artificial configuration, then you have to put that energy back in to "reset" back to the mutually repulsive configuration. Try to recover the energy cost from cutting the magnet as in your post, and see how efficient that is!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2015, 07:09:47 PM
The "We know how wind works" is another false analogy, because ultimately, wind depends on gravity and energy from the sun to operate. Tinman could easily be asking "how does gravity work" or "how does the sun's energy heat the air". Really, he is asking "Why" questions, not "how" questions. We can usually fully describe "how" these things occur and anyone can look up math formulae at whatever level of complexity they desire to describe and calculate just "how" they happen. The deeper question is "why", and there are many such "why" questions at the bleeding edge where science and philosophy collide. Why is there something, rather than nothing?
Good luck with that one.

How does a magnetic field attract a ferromagnetic substance? The formulae are there for anyone to see and compute with. You can even plug the data into your favorite magnetic simulator and calculate just how strong and in what direction the attraction will be, and this is done every day by motor designers, etc. who actually find that their motors etc. behave as the calculations predict. The "how" is understood pretty darn well.  "Why" does this attraction happen? That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 07:33:39 PM
@MarkPersonally I have found the laws almost always apply however many people have failed to consider the context in which they are applied. For instance a drop of water cannot climb up a wall against the force of Gravity, it is impossible and violates many known laws of science. Yet this is exactly what one scientist did using an engineered material (nano-material) and he did not break any laws doing it. In fact his experiment did not violate any laws but in fact proved them on that scale.
Excuse me I must have missed that particular law.  What is it known as?  Gravity exerts a force.  Set-up a set of conditions where there is more force up than gravity imposes down and things accelerate upward.
Quote

My magnetic bearing is another example and when I told some people I built a 99% passive magnetic bearing based solely on attractive forces they said it cannot be done and violates the laws of science. It doesn't violate the laws of science or Earnshaws theorem because it is 99% passive not 100% and again basically proves the laws but in a completely different context than most would expect.
So either "some people" misunderstood you or they misunderstood the constraints of Earnshaw's theorem.
Quote
   Thus in my mind it was never the laws which were ever in question but a persons ability to understand the context in which the laws may be applied.
People make mistakes all the time, yes.
Quote
At which point we could go one step further and say the laws we know may always apply however we may never know the infinite number of ways in which the context of there application could change.
There is a big difference between an individual misunderstanding a law and whether or not the law is valid.
Quote
Almost anything is still possible however it is not a matter of breaking a law but how we interpret and apply it from our own perspective.
Nature doesn't give a hoot what someone understands.  Physical laws get codified because all efforts to falsify the belief fail.  Laws fall or get modified whenever reliable observation shows that a given law does not hold.
Quote
The Down wind faster than the wind technology is another perfect example because I didn't see that one coming.
A lot of well educated people did not think that it could work.  But there were no laws that it broke.
Quote
I mean I have decades of experience researching and experimenting in aerodynamics but that one caught me completely off guard no matter how obvious it was after the fact.

AC
Individuals make mistakes.  Even SME's make mistakes.  That does not make physical laws into some whimsical smorgasborg that one can choose to ignore.  I remember years ago a debate at between Sean McCarthy of Steorn and a professor of physics, I think at UCD.  Sean McCarthy tried to argue that he was taught that test triumphs theory.  Therefore any test or test claim triumphs theory.  ( Over the years Steorn demonstrated that they very consistently conducted junk tests. )He got handed his head on a plate by the professor.  Reliable experiments drive and challenge theory.  Flawed experiments and flawed interpretations cause temporary distractions, ala N rays.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 13, 2015, 07:40:20 PM
You responded with a situation that has nothing at all to do with magnetizing permanent magnets and recovering that stored energy, but rather simply shows how moving permanent magnets from one orientation to another within a solenoid stores and recovers energy.
If you subscribe to the model of a permanent magnets being composed of tiny magnetic dipoles (domains) then it does.
According to that model, the energy stored in permanent magnets is due to the spatial orientation of these domains.
If those domains were allowed to rotate freely (e.g. by exceeding the Curie temperature or cutting up the magnet), then the net magnetic field of a magnet would disappear.

Such disappearance would induce EMF in a coil encompassing the magnet.

You get to do that _once_ in your artificial configuration, then you have to put that energy back in to "reset" back to the mutually repulsive configuration.
Yes, of course.  That's why I asked you about the efficiency of reversibility of such process.

I do not really suggest cutting a magnet up.  Two magnets rotating on a common axis are sufficient to illustrate the process.  They are also magnetic dipoles, just larger...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 07:50:03 PM
If you subscribe to the model of a permanent magnets being composed of tiny magnetic dipoles (domains) then it does.
According to that model, the energy stored in permanent magnets is due to the spatial orientation of these domains.
If those domains were allowed to rotate freely (e.g. by exceeding the Curie temperature or cutting up the magnet), then the net magnetic field of a magnet would disappear.

Such disappearance would induce EMF in a coil encompassing the magnet.
Yes, of course.  That's why I asked you about the efficiency of reversibility of such process.

I do not really suggest cutting a magnet up.  Two magnets rotating on a common axis are sufficient to illustrate the process.
TK will be happy to point to papers on certain EMP weapons that he has in the past that leverage the rapid demagnetization of hard magnetic material by blowing the material up.

The Curie temperature idea could be a fun experiment.  I'd have to ponder a bit on how to perform the experiment safely.  Maybe this can be done by taking an ordinary iron bar as a control and a neodymium magnet as the DUT and placing each successively inside a large diameter coil for thermal insulation and then exposing each to a propane torch.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2015, 08:42:13 PM
If you subscribe to the model of a permanent magnets being composed of tiny magnetic dipoles (domains) then it does.
According to that model, the energy stored in permanent magnets is due to the spatial orientation of these domains.
If those domains were allowed to rotate freely (e.g. by exceeding the Curie temperature or cutting up the magnet), then the net magnetic field of a magnet would disappear.

Such disappearance would induce EMF in a coil encompassing the magnet.
And would be irreversible without remagnetizing the magnet, and would require an _input_ of energy to heat the magnet. So you have a situation where energy is input to magnetize the PM, then energy is input to heat it past the Curie point to demagnetize it....  does this sound like an efficient process to you?  Don't forget that the induced voltage is proportional to the time rate of change of the change in magnetization. So to get anything much out of the solenoid you have to have all your domains flipping within a short period of time. Good luck doing that with heating past the Curie point.
Quote
Yes, of course.  That's why I asked you about the efficiency of reversibility of such process.
In the situation you describe I doubt if you could reverse the orientation of the two magnets, or half-magnets, by pulsing the external solenoid. As you said, once the magnet-halves have flipped so they are in mutual attraction, very little of their fields "leak" out, so what will the pulsed solenoid's field be acting upon?

Quote
I do not really suggest cutting a magnet up.  Two magnets rotating on a common axis are sufficient to illustrate the process.  They are also magnetic dipoles, just larger...
So you have to put energy in to "c o c  k" the system, then when you release whatever is holding it in the cocked state, the solenoid recovers the energy that you put in in the first place. This may be relatively efficient except for the inevitable electrical losses, just as the ordinary "cogging" of a rotor magnet passing a core is relatively energy-neutral except for eddy current losses and bearing wobble, etc. It also has nothing to do with storing and recovering energy by magnetizing and demagnetizing permanent magnets! Your comparison of this process to the alignment and de-alignment of domains is a real stretch, I think.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 13, 2015, 08:59:25 PM
TK will be happy to point to papers on certain EMP weapons that he has in the past that leverage the rapid demagnetization of hard magnetic material by blowing the material up.

The Curie temperature idea could be a fun experiment.  I'd have to ponder a bit on how to perform the experiment safely.  Maybe this can be done by taking an ordinary iron bar as a control and a neodymium magnet as the DUT and placing each successively inside a large diameter coil for thermal insulation and then exposing each to a propane torch.

Well, I remember posting information about explosively pumped Flux Compression Generators coupled to Vircator emitter systems used to produce EMP. That's a bit different from what you describe here, though. I don't remember talking about fragmenting permanent magnets to recover their energy of magnetization (which after all isn't very great.) In the FCG an _electromagnet_ in the form of a solenoid coil is rapidly and progressively short-circuited by an explosive charge driving a shunt which effectively forces the initial magnetic flux to concentrate into fewer and fewer turns of the electromagnet coil, eventually to be released as a very strong, fast rise-time pulse into the virtual cathode emitter/antenna system which then radiates the energy onto the target. Much of the radiated energy comes from the high-explosive charge that drives the shunt, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator)
This is another excellent example of how the conventional view of flux lines is used to design, control, and predict the behaviour of real devices that work as their designers intend them to.

I did find one type that uses an exploded magnet as the first "seed" stage to power the electromagnet solenoid second stage (second image below). Most systems that I am aware of use a capacitor bank for the "seed" power to the FCG solenoid stage, though. Again, it is the high-explosive's energy that is converted into electrical energy by the fragmenting magnet within the first-stage solenoid, not the magnetization energy per se.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 09:27:39 PM
IMO, the most important research skills are:  1) Critical thinking, 2) The ability to search for relevant existing information, 3) The presence of mind and humility to ask questions.  Somewhere down the list is the ability to personally set-up and conduct experiments.  Many things that we want to know about will be well beyond our individual means to directly research.  Creativity is very useful but it is also down the list.  Those who master the criitical basic skills and are also creative thinkers are able to take jumps where linear thinkers must plod.  Linear thinkers who master the basic skills are equipped to make advances.  Those who do not master the basic skills but are creative can have interesting ideas but are unequipped to sift gems from dross.  Those who think linearly but who do not master the basic skills tend to regurgitate what they are taught without consideration for the fact that mostly correct is not totally correct.

Again MarkE - You have surprised me - I agree!

I don't agree with the numbering of each item but agree these are good guidelines!

1) The ability to search for relevant existing information - Research Skills
2) The presence of mind and humility to ask questions - Intuition - Looking outside the Box!
3) Ability to personally set-up and conduct experiments.
4) Keep things Simple! - Don't over complicate things!
5) Critical thinking - Believe Nothing, Assume Nothing until Experiment proves it! Even then Experiment must be repeatable every time! Check for Experiments that Contradict the first!
6) Documentation!
7) Extension of the above - More Intuition!

This list may not be ideal also but certainly the above is important! Else one will never progress!

Kind Regards

  Chris

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 09:42:13 PM
Well, I remember posting information about explosively pumped Flux Compression Generators coupled to Vircator emitter systems used to produce EMP. That's a bit different from what you describe here, though. I don't remember talking about fragmenting permanent magnets to recover their energy of magnetization (which after all isn't very great.) In the FCG an _electromagnet_ in the form of a solenoid coil is rapidly and progressively short-circuited by an explosive charge driving a shunt which effectively forces the initial magnetic flux to concentrate into fewer and fewer turns of the electromagnet coil, eventually to be released as a very strong, fast rise-time pulse into the virtual cathode emitter/antenna system which then radiates the energy onto the target. Much of the radiated energy comes from the high-explosive charge that drives the shunt, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator)
This is another excellent example of how the conventional view of flux lines is used to design, control, and predict the behaviour of real devices that work as their designers intend them to.

I did find one type that uses an exploded magnet as the first "seed" stage to power the electromagnet solenoid second stage (second image below). Most systems that I am aware of use a capacitor bank for the "seed" power to the FCG solenoid stage, though. Again, it is the high-explosive's energy that is converted into electrical energy by the fragmenting magnet within the first-stage solenoid, not the magnetization energy per se.
Yeah those are the sorts of machines I was thinking of.  Even a modest amount of energy when released quickly enough translates to lots of power. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 09:48:35 PM
@MarkPersonally I have found the laws almost always apply however many people have failed to consider the context in which they are applied. For instance a drop of water cannot climb up a wall against the force of Gravity, it is impossible and violates many known laws of science. Yet this is exactly what one scientist did using an engineered material (nano-material) and he did not break any laws doing it. In fact his experiment did not violate any laws but in fact proved them on that scale.

My magnetic bearing is another example and when I told some people I built a 99% passive magnetic bearing based solely on attractive forces they said it cannot be done and violates the laws of science. It doesn't violate the laws of science or Earnshaws theorem because it is 99% passive not 100% and again basically proves the laws but in a completely different context than most would expect.  Thus in my mind it was never the laws which were ever in question but a persons ability to understand the context in which the laws may be applied.
At which point we could go one step further and say the laws we know may always apply however we may never know the infinite number of ways in which the context of there application could change. Almost anything is still possible however it is not a matter of breaking a law but how we interpret and apply it from our own perspective.
The Down wind faster than the wind technology is another perfect example because I didn't see that one coming. I mean I have decades of experience researching and experimenting in aerodynamics but that one caught me completely off guard no matter how obvious it was after the fact.

AC

@AC - I completely Agree!

Millikan's Oil Drop Experiment! Law still applies but the conditions under which the prior known Laws were applied have now been changed!

I watched a Video online the other day, Earnshaw's Theorem, URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djPdEsL7EHY

Claiming to disprove Earnshaw's Theorem! However, the distance of the Charged Particles is not taken into account! As Charged Particles get closer together, the Inverse Square Law, actually Inverts relative to Quantum Distance!

So as the Particles move closer together, what was attractive actually becomes repulsive! Due to the Inverse Square Law!

So Laws are still relevant! Only under the conditions they were defined under!

Kind Regards

  Chris


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 13, 2015, 10:08:00 PM
No, when one wishes to argue against established understanding it is up to the challenger to provide convincing evidence.

As human beings we do not have any absolute knowledge.  Philosphers get to argue about such matters while never attaining absolute knowledge anymore than anyone else.   We can absolutely predict with deadly accuracy: static electric, static magnetic, and electrodynamic behaviors to incredibly high accuracies.   That we are able to do so, very strongly suggests that we have a very strong grasp of how the elements interact.  If someone wants to make a dent in the set of beliefs that allow us to do this, then they need to find at least one situation where their new idea makes better predictions, while making equally accurate predictions as established beliefs in all other cases.  It is a very tall order.  So no, I reject the idea that one has to have a fundamental answer to the theory of everything in order to adhere to established scientific beliefs: IE physical laws.  To paraphrase Dr. Sheehan:  "Laws are laws until they aren't."  Come up with a case of where the laws fail.  Then come up with a better answer.

Well that didnt get us very far,so im guessing were sticking to theories ATM.

It is great that you believe we have a good grasp on whats going on with magnetic field's,so i will take the time to ask you another question.

Im sure you have seen some guys around here(including myself) make those induction water heater's-the one's with a looped coil of copper pipe filled with water,and in the center of this looped copper pipe is a rotor with PM's in it. They spin the rotor up,eddy currents heat the copper pipe,and thus the water in side the pipe. So we know an equal and opposite force is created between the rotor and copper-the drag on the rotor is the same as the drag on the copper pipe. But my question is this-the copper pipe and water gets hot,but do the magnets on the rotor also get hot?-we are assuming that the copper pipe is insulated,and radiant heat from the copper pipe dose not heat the rotating magnets.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 13, 2015, 10:10:21 PM
@Mark
DWFTTW
Quote
A lot of well educated people did not think that it could work.  But there
were no laws that it broke.
I would agree and that was my point,  hovever we should be perfectly clear that almost all the experts claimed the Down Wind Faster than the Wind technology must violate the laws of physics and be a perpetual motion machine... Period... no futher debate required. They used the laws to justify their misguided opinions simply because they didn't understand what was happening, that is what I'm talking about. Let's not sugar coat this because they made themselves look absolutely stupid and it is still archived all over the net for all to see.
If they actually had any real integrity they would have given the proper response which is -- "I do not know we will have to wait for more facts" --because those are the facts but saying it must violate the laws of physics is obviously a lie.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 13, 2015, 10:17:39 PM
@Mark
DWFTTWI would agree and that was my point,  hovever we should be perfectly clear that almost all the experts claimed the Down Wind Faster than the Wind technology must violate the laws of physics and be a perpetual motion machine... Period... no futher debate required. They used the laws to justify their misguided opinions simply because they didn't understand what was happening, that is what I'm talking about. Let's not sugar coat this because they made themselves look absolutely stupid and it is still archived all over the net for all to see.
If they actually had any real integrity they would have given the proper response which is -- "I do not know we will have to wait for more facts" --because those are the facts but saying it must violate the laws of physics is obviously a lie.

AC
There's the money shot right there AC-well done.

They had a good handle on there laws-->until the back yard boys blew them out of the water. But as always,it was just an oversite--it's all fixed now ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Floor on January 13, 2015, 10:20:37 PM
This one really is for the questioning.

Please find below the PDF file ”resurrection” .


               Cheers
                      floor
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 13, 2015, 10:27:46 PM
This one really is for the questioning.

Please find below the PDF file ”resurrection” .


               Cheers
                      floor
You know that SMOTs don't work don't you?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 13, 2015, 10:33:43 PM
@Tinman
Quote
There's the money shot right there AC-well done.
They had a good handle on
there laws-->until the back yard boys blew them out of the water. But as
always,it was just an oversite--it's all fixed now
It really irritates me that this same juvenile behavior still continues today and that so many people are claiming that something is impossible or must violate the laws of physics without having any knowledge of what is actually happening. The fact remains that the scientific community called the DWFTTW engineers liers to their face and prostituted their laws to justify their own misguided opinions. They lied outright to everyone then when proven wrong they tried to sugar coat the whole scenario so they wouldn't look like the fools they obviously are, it was embarrassing for everyone involved.
So the lesson here is we should not be so quick to judge anyone until we have all the facts regardless of who we are or what we think we know. Context Matters
AC
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 10:55:25 PM
This is the truth EMJ,and i was here for the Ainslie saga from the start-->that was a hoot for sure.

Although we may not agree on all things all the time,the 3 above mentioned have my upmost respect. As far as disagreeing some times with what one another may think is right or wrong,well the world would be a pretty boaring stale place to be in if we all thought the same.

We all have our win's every now and then,but you will find MH,poynt and TK nail it 99.99% of the time-->hell,TK even had to correct MarkE there once not to far back in this thread,and i even got to correct MH once(i believe was also in this thread?),and that came about from experiments and bench time-->i think thats the only one for me but with these 3 guy's lol.

@Tinman - Yes, sometimes it is down to interpretation, How one Understands something can be quite different sometimes!

Still, key word research is the best way I have found to look for information!

There are some very smart guys here, this is not in doubt!

Ed Skilling had the following to say about Lester J Hendershot:

"His native intelligence was extremely high."

and also

"When compared to T. Henry Moray, Hendershot in my opinion was a giant."

Hendershot had been educated to high school level and had only the most basic understanding of conventional electrical theory!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 13, 2015, 11:32:19 PM
@TinmanIt really irritates me that this same juvenile behavior still continues today and that so many people are claiming that something is impossible or must violate the laws of physics without having any knowledge of what is actually happening. The fact remains that the scientific community called the DWFTTW engineers liers to their face and prostituted their laws to justify their own misguided opinions. They lied outright to everyone then when proven wrong they tried to sugar coat the whole scenario so they wouldn't look like the fools they obviously are, it was embarrassing for everyone involved.
So the lesson here is we should not be so quick to judge anyone until we have all the facts regardless of who we are or what we think we know. Context Matters
AC

@AC and ALL - DWFTTW

DWFTTW URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHsXcHoJu-A

For some 300 years, a device has been built and no dispute about weather it works has been presented!

It works, Simple, it works!, no dispute, its used everyday by many thousands and thousands of people.

The Hydraulic Ram Pump

This pump is an Un-Stable System - Earnshaw's Theorem permits this due to the Inverse Square Law of Gravity! One could call this a Gravitic Oscillator!

The Hydraulic Ram Pump URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkuZjd2Frc

and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHqDkd7KdPg

I wasn't going to reply to this post and see if people were going to take it up! This is a very relevant and essential topic!

To say SMOT's (Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy) don't work is, in my opinion foolish.

It works if the right conditions are met!

SMOT URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5mYm5nO5Fw&index=2&list=PL18F92E8FE71E9FBA

Howard Johnson also built a similar thing. It also worked!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 12:04:20 AM
Well that didnt get us very far,so im guessing were sticking to theories ATM.

It is great that you believe we have a good grasp on whats going on with magnetic field's,so i will take the time to ask you another question.

Im sure you have seen some guys around here(including myself) make those induction water heater's-the one's with a looped coil of copper pipe filled with water,and in the center of this looped copper pipe is a rotor with PM's in it. They spin the rotor up,eddy currents heat the copper pipe,and thus the water in side the pipe. So we know an equal and opposite force is created between the rotor and copper-the drag on the rotor is the same as the drag on the copper pipe. But my question is this-the copper pipe and water gets hot,but do the magnets on the rotor also get hot?-we are assuming that the copper pipe is insulated,and radiant heat from the copper pipe dose not heat the rotating magnets.
Do we agree that it is the eddy currents induced in the copper pipe that do the heating?  Do we agree that if we accelerate a mass in a frictionless environment that neither the acceleration nor the resultant velocity heat the mass? Do we agree that the power induced in a coil is:  VINDUCED2/R?  Do we agree that where R is small as in a chunk of copper that the resulting power is much greater than where R is much larger as in a magnet?

If we agree on all these points, do you still have a question?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2015, 12:53:46 AM
You know that SMOTs don't work don't you?

Clearly he does NOT know, or believe, that SMOTs don't work! Just look at what he's posted! 

Go ahead, EMJunkie. Please go to work and make a self-looping SMOT! I don't think you should post anything else until you get one working, running by itself. After all, your posted .pdf says "can this be looped? Yes!" and you claim that the video shows a "working" SMOT! So go to it! Put those wonderful critical thinking and building skills to work and PROVE ME WRONG. Make a self-looped SMOT! Simple, right? I laugh at you!
You cannot do it!

And how about a hydraulic ram pump? Make one that pumps water back up into its reservoir and just keeps on pumping the same water around and around, without you helping it by supplying _excess water_ from an upper reservoir. Hundreds and hundreds of years! Go ahead, make one that works in a closed loop!
You cannot!

And it is clear that you are unaware of the _real_ scientific discussion that has happened concerning the DWFTTW efforts. Some people didn't believe it at first glance, that is true. It is also true that many of those openminded disbelievers carried out a rational discussion, built models and finally convinced themselves that it was possible, before the definitive demonstrations that we have all seen on YT. This issue is +unrelated+, except in your mind.

Why don't you drag out the old canard about the Wright Brothers, next, where you claim that they did what "every scientist" believed was impossible, while you ignore the fact that they had examples from nature, examples from models, man-carrying kites, soaring gliders, the work of other people, and years of their own _scientific_ research to build upon before they flew their first _powered_ airplane.

You're a real hoot EMJunkie. Produce a self-looped SMOT to back up your silly claims, or everyone will know that you are just another blowhard false claimant like so many we have seen here, claiming something that is not true.  YOU CANNOT !!  You've really stuck your foot in your mouth now, with your support of SMOT claims. Get to work! SIMPLE magnetic overunity toy. Howard Johnson! Your pdf! The video you linked! Where is your PROOF of OU, your self looped SMOT? You cannot do it!!!

Quote
It works if the right conditions are met!
Yes... if you supply power from the outside! By Mister Hand!

You get a ROFL for that one!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 01:13:32 AM
Clearly he does NOT know, or believe, that SMOTs don't work! Just look at what he's posted! 

Go ahead, EMJunkie. Please go to work and make a self-looping SMOT! I don't think you should post anything else until you get one working, running by itself. After all, your posted .pdf says "can this be looped? Yes!" and you claim that the video shows a "working" SMOT! So go to it! Put those wonderful critical thinking and building skills to work and PROVE ME WRONG. Make a self-looped SMOT! Simple, right? I laugh at you!
You cannot do it!

And how about a hydraulic ram pump? Make one that pumps water back up into its reservoir and just keeps on pumping the same water around and around, without you helping it by supplying _excess water_ from an upper reservoir. Hundreds and hundreds of years! Go ahead, make one that works in a closed loop!
You cannot!

And it is clear that you are unaware of the _real_ scientific discussion that has happened concerning the DWFTTW efforts. Some people didn't believe it at first glance, that is true. It is also true that many of those openminded disbelievers carried out a rational discussion, built models and finally convinced themselves that it was possible, before the definitive demonstrations that we have all seen on YT. This issue is +unrelated+, except in your mind.

Why don't you drag out the old canard about the Wright Brothers, next, where you claim that they did what "every scientist" believed was impossible, while you ignore the fact that they had examples from nature, examples from models, man-carrying kites, soaring gliders, the work of other people, and years of their own _scientific_ research to build upon before they flew their first _powered_ airplane.

You're a real hoot EMJunkie. Produce a self-looped SMOT to back up your silly claims, or everyone will know that you are just another blowhard false claimant like so many we have seen here, claiming something that is not true.  YOU CANNOT !!  You've really stuck your foot in your mouth now, with your support of SMOT claims. Get to work! SIMPLE magnetic overunity toy. Howard Johnson! Your pdf! The video you linked! Where is your PROOF of OU, your self looped SMOT? You cannot do it!!!
Yes... if you supply power from the outside! By Mister Hand!

You get a ROFL for that one!

TinselKoala - Youre a FOOL! Blind and Intellectually Handicaped! Oil Company Troll!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 01:16:54 AM
Clearly he does NOT know, or believe, that SMOTs don't work! Just look at what he's posted! 

Go ahead, EMJunkie. Please go to work and make a self-looping SMOT! I don't think you should post anything else until you get one working, running by itself. After all, your posted .pdf says "can this be looped? Yes!" and you claim that the video shows a "working" SMOT! So go to it! Put those wonderful critical thinking and building skills to work and PROVE ME WRONG. Make a self-looped SMOT! Simple, right? I laugh at you!
You cannot do it!

And how about a hydraulic ram pump? Make one that pumps water back up into its reservoir and just keeps on pumping the same water around and around, without you helping it by supplying _excess water_ from an upper reservoir. Hundreds and hundreds of years! Go ahead, make one that works in a closed loop!
You cannot!

And it is clear that you are unaware of the _real_ scientific discussion that has happened concerning the DWFTTW efforts. Some people didn't believe it at first glance, that is true. It is also true that many of those openminded disbelievers carried out a rational discussion, built models and finally convinced themselves that it was possible, before the definitive demonstrations that we have all seen on YT. This issue is +unrelated+, except in your mind.

Why don't you drag out the old canard about the Wright Brothers, next, where you claim that they did what "every scientist" believed was impossible, while you ignore the fact that they had examples from nature, examples from models, man-carrying kites, soaring gliders, the work of other people, and years of their own _scientific_ research to build upon before they flew their first _powered_ airplane.

You're a real hoot EMJunkie. Produce a self-looped SMOT to back up your silly claims, or everyone will know that you are just another blowhard false claimant like so many we have seen here, claiming something that is not true.  YOU CANNOT !!  You've really stuck your foot in your mouth now, with your support of SMOT claims. Get to work! SIMPLE magnetic overunity toy. Howard Johnson! Your pdf! The video you linked! Where is your PROOF of OU, your self looped SMOT? You cannot do it!!!
Yes... if you supply power from the outside! By Mister Hand!

You get a ROFL for that one!

Does one PAY for the Water running down the stream? No Fool!
Does one PAY for the Flux that extrudes from the Pole of a Permanent Magnet? No Fool!
Does one PAY for the Wind to keep the Wind Turbine going? No Fool!
Does one PAY for the Gravitational Forces that hold your feet on the Earths Surface? No Fool!

See what I mean - Intellectually Handicapped!

Blind and Ignorant you stupid Oil Company Fool!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 01:17:51 AM
There's the money shot right there AC-well done.

They had a good handle on there laws-->until the back yard boys blew them out of the water. But as always,it was just an oversite--it's all fixed now ;)
You can call aeronautical SME's "back yard boys" if you like.  In any event, they knew their subject matter backwards and forwards.  They: came up with the concept, proved it on paper (simulations), and then went and built a working proof of concept.  Analysis, simulation, and experiment all correlated.  A lot of smart people were deceived by their own intuition.  That happens.  That's why reliable data always tells the real story.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 01:28:37 AM
@Mark
DWFTTWI would agree and that was my point,  hovever we should be perfectly clear that almost all the experts claimed the Down Wind Faster than the Wind technology must violate the laws of physics and be a perpetual motion machine... Period... no futher debate required.
You must have seen different debates than I did.  The debates I saw, many engineers and scientists said that the land yacht would lose all further thrust once its air speed reached zero.  I don't recall anyone calling it perpetual motion.
Quote
They used the laws to justify their misguided opinions simply because they didn't understand what was happening, that is what I'm talking about.
They misanalyzed the device.  Those who behaved badly got a big serving of well deserved crow.
Quote
Let's not sugar coat this because they made themselves look absolutely stupid and it is still archived all over the net for all to see.
With respect to those who behaved badly I agree they hurt their own reputations.  Those who got it wrong but behaved honorably can shrug off the fact that they are human and everyone makes mistakes.
Quote
If they actually had any real integrity they would have given the proper response which is -- "I do not know we will have to wait for more facts" --because those are the facts but saying it must violate the laws of physics is obviously a lie.
Those who stated "It would violate the laws of physics"were genuine in their opinions and did have a logical albeit incorrect basis in fact for those beliefs.  The people behind the claim did what anyone who makes an extraordinary (or in this case only seemingly extraordinary) claim need to do:  They gathered irrefutable evidence that backed their correct DWFTTW claim.
Quote

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 01:37:41 AM
And how about a hydraulic ram pump? Make one that pumps water back up into its reservoir and just keeps on pumping the same water around and around, without you helping it by supplying _excess water_ from an upper reservoir. Hundreds and hundreds of years! Go ahead, make one that works in a closed loop!
You cannot!

TinselKoala - This is the most FOOLISH Stupid, IDIOT sentence I have ever read in my entire life!

Clearly your Intellectual Handicap does not allow you to use Comprehensive Fundamental Rational reason to advance anyone or anything!

Youre a defeatist! In your heart you believe that nothing can be done!

I was 14 years old when I built my first Ram Pump, and Yes it worked. As do All Ram Pumps once constructed correctly!

The most simple thing in the world, 2 moving parts and it defeats your pathetic inability too see past your very own Ignorance!

Wow you are now the most silly person on ou.com! I am totally gob smacked at your stupidity!
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 01:46:08 AM
The ram pump is just a form of transformer.  Large amounts of low-pressure water can be converted into smaller amounts of high-pressure water.  Big deal.

It's a phenomenon observed on the forums all the time.  Simple ordinary things are believed to be over unity devices by ignorant or misinformed people.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 01:47:45 AM
Quote
Wow you are now the most silly person on ou.com! I am totally gob smacked at your stupidity!

Look in the mirror.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 02:02:21 AM
The server is totally flaky, I am assuming that other people are experiencing the blackouts.  I have lost a handful of postings because I forget to put them in my copy/paste buffer before clicking the button.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 14, 2015, 02:06:38 AM
@EMJ
A few thoughts concerning the DWFTTW and the SMOT concepts.
In both cases the critics stuck in their own personal flavor of mediocrity have said something cannot work because of certain laws however these laws were always applied in there most basic sense to justify an opinion. That is the DWFTTW concept cannot work because the force on an object from the wind decreases as the velocity of the object increases thus if the object reaches the same speed as the wind there can be no applied force. It is all common sense that it cannot go faster than the wind and must be a perpetual mobile in violation of natural law. Now did you see what just happened here?, they applied the most basic form of the law to a rather complex concept they did not understand to justify their opinion.

The SMOT is really no different because according to the critics it is just like a metal spring and we all know how springs act don't we?. Why it is all common sense and the same laws which apply to a simple spring must also apply to the SMOT and if it could work then it must also be a perpetual mobile in violation of natural law. Again we have a very strange scenario whereby the critics have applied the most basic form of the law to a complex system they may not fully understand.

What is not always apparent, the good part, is that if we actually listen to the critics sometimes their misguided thoughts to justify their own opinion can offer real insight. For instance they believe the SMOT is just like a simple spring and nothing more or it may magically morph into a mythical perpetual mobile. However the inverse to their thoughts is that we want a system which can never act like a spring. You see they have just given us an answer to the single biggest problem we may encounter and under no circumstances can the system act like a simple spring or it cannot work.

Which raises the question how do we build a magnetic system which can never act like a simple spring?. Why if it were me I would look for non-linear relationships such as a spring which becomes weaker with one polarity (incoming magnet) and stronger with another polarity (outgoing magnet). Or a material which changes it's magnetic properties but only under certain specific conditions which we might control or a material which causes the field to move abruptly from one area to the next under certain conditions. I mean the critics have opened up endless possibilities due to their own indifference to the problem which they obviously have no idea how to solve... thanks critics.
It's really quite simple and in many cases we should simply do the opposite of what they are telling us.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 14, 2015, 02:14:36 AM
And would be irreversible without remagnetizing the magnet,
Yes

and would require an _input_ of energy to heat the magnet.
In the case of using the heat to free the domains - yes.  Let's neglect the magnetocaloric effect and heat recovery for now*
...but in case of fragmenting the magnet - no.

So you have a situation where energy is input to magnetize the PM, then energy is input to heat it past the Curie point to demagnetize it....  does this sound like an efficient process to you? 
No.
This example was not to illustrate the efficiency of heating up the magnet to release its magnetic energy.
...but rather to illustrate that the forces of chaos will release it if given a chance to act.

Don't forget that the induced voltage is proportional to the time rate of change of the change in magnetization.
...but in an ideal coil the induced current does not depend on this rate of change and neither does the induced electric energy.
Indeed, the induced voltage does depend on the rate of change of flux, but that is useful only for non-shorted coils where this voltage is accessible for measurement.

So to get anything much out of the solenoid you have to have all your domains flipping within a short period of time.
Well, it would be more precise to write that the domains would have to release their energy faster than the resistance would dissipate it away.  In a superconducting coil that time would be infinite and in a resistive coil that time would have to shorter that a quarter of the L/R time constant.

In the situation you describe I doubt if you could reverse the orientation of the two magnets, or half-magnets, by pulsing the external solenoid.
I assume that you are referring to the macro mechanical system that I posted.
Well we would need an experiment to confirm that.

As you said, once the magnet-halves have flipped so they are in mutual attraction, very little of their fields "leak" out, so what will the pulsed solenoid's field be acting upon?
I would think that unless multiple pairs of magnets formed a circle (like a toroid) then there would be still some fringing fields in one pair of magnets for an energized coil to grab onto.  Another arguments for this possibility is that ferrimagnetic materials also are composed of many antiparallel magnetic dipoles yet an external H field is able to grab them and rotate them somehow.  Yes, these domains are much smaller than those two macro magnets, but why should that matter?

So you have to put energy in to "c o c k" the system, then when you release whatever is holding it in the cocked state, the solenoid recovers the energy that you put in in the first place.
Yes, the "cocked" magnet pair could be released effortlessly by e.g. pulling a locking pin ;)

This may be relatively efficient except for the inevitable electrical losses, just as the ordinary "cogging" of a rotor magnet passing a core is relatively energy-neutral except for eddy current losses and bearing wobble, etc.
Yes the electrical losses would be inversely proportional to the speed of the process.
I think 80% efficiency would be a good result.

It also has nothing to do with storing and recovering energy by magnetizing and demagnetizing permanent magnets!
It does a little, but I admit the process is much closer to magnetizing and demagnetizing soft ferrimagnetic materials.
Note that this demagnetization occurs spontaneously in soft ferrites. Here is what Sparks thinks about it:

I see the destruction of a magnetic field as an input in energy from whatever is driving the entropy of the Universe. 


Your comparison of this process to the alignment and de-alignment of domains is a real stretch, I think.
Why?  Don't the magnetization directions of these little domains change similarly to a bunch of pivoting magnets?
The biggest difference seems to be the scale of these magnetic dipoles.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Carnot cycle is not my favorite subject for a conversation.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 14, 2015, 02:14:44 AM
@MH
Quote
The server is totally flaky, I am assuming that other people are experiencing
the blackouts.  I have lost a handful of postings because I forget to put them
in my copy/paste buffer before clicking the button.
I feel your pain-- cannot find server Doh..
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 02:32:24 AM
Go ahead, EMJunkie. Please go to work and make a self-looping SMOT! I don't think you should post anything else until you get one working, running by itself. After all, your posted .pdf says "can this be looped? Yes!" and you claim that the video shows a "working" SMOT! So go to it! Put those wonderful critical thinking and building skills to work and PROVE ME WRONG. Make a self-looped SMOT! Simple, right? I laugh at you!
You cannot do it!

TinselKoala - Just ONE Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bssBAb6EzM4

Robert is just one of many genuine real devices!

What a FOOL You have proven yourself to be!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 02:34:53 AM
Look in the mirror.

MileHigh - You are just as stupid! Oil Company Troll!

P.S: Your previous comment distorts your previous debated topics!

Ram Pump runs all by itself, NO BATTERY REQUIRED!!!!

Oil Company Troll! or Trolls, all three of you! You know what I mean by this too!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 02:35:10 AM
TinselKoala - Just ONE Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bssBAb6EzM4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bssBAb6EzM4)

Robert is just one of many genuine real devices!

What a FOOL You have proven yourself to be!

That is so hilarious because I was the very first person to bust that clip!

You must put on your critical thinking skills cap EMJ.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 02:36:59 AM
MileHigh - You are just as stupid! Oil Company Troll!

P.S: Your previous comment distorts your previous debated topics!

Ram Pump runs all by itself, NO BATTERY REQUIRED!!!!

Oil Company Troll! or Trolls, all three of you! You know what I mean by this too!

That's all fine and dandy until the nutcase guns you down in the street like a dog.  Like it happened in France just a few days ago.

Shame on you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 02:51:01 AM
I scrolled though the comments and there I was!   Has it already been four years?

Read it and weep Chris.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 02:51:40 AM
@AC and ALL - DWFTTW

DWFTTW URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHsXcHoJu-A

For some 300 years, a device has been built and no dispute about weather it works has been presented!

It works, Simple, it works!, no dispute, its used everyday by many thousands and thousands of people.

The Hydraulic Ram Pump

This pump is an Un-Stable System - Earnshaw's Theorem permits this due to the Inverse Square Law of Gravity! One could call this a Gravitic Oscillator!

The Hydraulic Ram Pump URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkuZjd2Frc

and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHqDkd7KdPg

I wasn't going to reply to this post and see if people were going to take it up! This is a very relevant and essential topic!

To say SMOT's (Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy) don't work is, in my opinion foolish.

It works if the right conditions are met!

SMOT URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5mYm5nO5Fw&index=2&list=PL18F92E8FE71E9FBA

Howard Johnson also built a similar thing. It also worked!

Kind Regards

  Chris
The SMOT demonstration you linked, like all other SMOTs and like every one of Howard Johnson's devices fails to complete even a single circuit.  Is that something you didn't notice?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 14, 2015, 02:54:07 AM
@MHI feel your pain-- cannot find server Doh..
AC

On firefox, if you click post and it comes up try again, just click your back button, and you have your post back.

Wait a few minutes and stir occasionally...no, wait, thats my mac and cheese directions...*puts box outta sight*.

If nothing else werks, just open up word and construct your posts there.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 02:54:44 AM
TinselKoala - Youre a FOOL! Blind and Intellectually Handicaped! Oil Company Troll!
You do realize that it is your character that you assail when you assert false disparaging claims against others don't you?  Why do you keep doing this to yourself?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 03:04:17 AM
@EMJ
A few thoughts concerning the DWFTTW and the SMOT concepts.
Are you claiming that a SMOT has ever worked?  If you are then kindly point to one that has or does.  Are you claiming that a SMOT could work?  If you are then kindly point to some source of reliable evidence that supports that idea.
Quote

In both cases the critics stuck in their own personal flavor of mediocrity have said something cannot work because of certain laws however these laws were always applied in there most basic sense to justify an opinion. That is the DWFTTW concept cannot work because the force on an object from the wind decreases as the velocity of the object increases thus if the object reaches the same speed as the wind there can be no applied force. It is all common sense that it cannot go faster than the wind and must be a perpetual mobile in violation of natural law. Now did you see what just happened here?, they applied the most basic form of the law to a rather complex concept they did not understand to justify their opinion.
So, let's see:  Someone overgeneralizes a principle and applies it where it doesn't belong.  Is that it?  Now, what can we observe about what you are doing by generalizing an entire class of people?
Quote

The SMOT is really no different because according to the critics it is just like a metal spring and we all know how springs act don't we?. Why it is all common sense and the same laws which apply to a simple spring must also apply to the SMOT and if it could work then it must also be a perpetual mobile in violation of natural law. Again we have a very strange scenario whereby the critics have applied the most basic form of the law to a complex system they may not fully understand.
Well, let me help you out with finding a few differences here: 

SME's who have articulated any hypothesis on which a SMOT could work that has passed peer review:  My count is zero.  What's yours?  The DWFTTW had many SMEs who validated the theory prior to actual runs. 

Number of SMOTs attempted:  Many.  Number of SMOTs that have ever worked:  My count is again zero.  What's yours?  The DWFTTW land yachts that have been built and worked:  At least several.
Quote

What is not always apparent, the good part, is that if we actually listen to the critics sometimes their misguided thoughts to justify their own opinion can offer real insight. For instance they believe the SMOT is just like a simple spring and nothing more or it may magically morph into a mythical perpetual mobile. However the inverse to their thoughts is that we want a system which can never act like a spring. You see they have just given us an answer to the single biggest problem we may encounter and under no circumstances can the system act like a simple spring or it cannot work.

Which raises the question how do we build a magnetic system which can never act like a simple spring?. Why if it were me I would look for non-linear relationships such as a spring which becomes weaker with one polarity (incoming magnet) and stronger with another polarity (outgoing magnet). Or a material which changes it's magnetic properties but only under certain specific conditions which we might control or a material which causes the field to move abruptly from one area to the next under certain conditions. I mean the critics have opened up endless possibilities due to their own indifference to the problem which they obviously have no idea how to solve... thanks critics.
It's really quite simple and in many cases we should simply do the opposite of what they are telling us.

AC
So do you have a hypothesis on which you believe a SMOT can work?  Who has ever attempted to implement your hypothesis?  Again:  Reliable data carries the day.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2015, 03:05:19 AM
TinselKoala - Just ONE Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bssBAb6EzM4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bssBAb6EzM4)

Robert is just one of many genuine real devices!

What a FOOL You have proven yourself to be!

Keep it up! You are digging your hole deeper and deeper.  Roobert himself has admitted that that video is a fake. You don't think so? It's simple enough, so BUILD IT YOURSELF and show it running. You can't!

Insult me all you like. You've got a long way to go before you come even close to the insults I've received from other fakers and false claimants on this forum. But you cannot actually refute me, and when you start posting nonsense, FAKED VIDEOS, and insults instead of showing your own work and making reasoned arguments, you are just demonstrating your incompetence and childishness. As well as your utter lack of critical thinking skills and your inability to do your own homework.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 03:08:36 AM
TinselKoala - Just ONE Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bssBAb6EzM4

Robert is just one of many genuine real devices!

What a FOOL You have proven yourself to be!
Quote
Uploaded on Nov 18, 2010

This is a back-up copy of a video originally posed by Roobert33 Roobert33 (now removed from his account) subsequently posted at FLek_3Hpwus

It shows a V-gate magnet motor that supposedly is made functional (rotation maintained) by means of a mechanical method for moving the stator magnets in and out of the way of the gate ("re-gauging") so that the gate doesn't become a lock-up point that otherwise would stop the motion of the magnet motor.

On Nov. 18, Roobert wrote to Stefan Hartmann at Overunity.com saying: "Yes, It was a joke that I should not do! I apologize to you and all your friends who have lost time in commenting on .... The device had to operate the magnet inside a coil that I had in my shirt."
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 03:09:26 AM
@EMJ
A few thoughts concerning the DWFTTW and the SMOT concepts.
In both cases the critics stuck in their own personal flavor of mediocrity have said something cannot work because of certain laws however these laws were always applied in there most basic sense to justify an opinion. That is the DWFTTW concept cannot work because the force on an object from the wind decreases as the velocity of the object increases thus if the object reaches the same speed as the wind there can be no applied force. It is all common sense that it cannot go faster than the wind and must be a perpetual mobile in violation of natural law. Now did you see what just happened here?, they applied the most basic form of the law to a rather complex concept they did not understand to justify their opinion.

The SMOT is really no different because according to the critics it is just like a metal spring and we all know how springs act don't we?. Why it is all common sense and the same laws which apply to a simple spring must also apply to the SMOT and if it could work then it must also be a perpetual mobile in violation of natural law. Again we have a very strange scenario whereby the critics have applied the most basic form of the law to a complex system they may not fully understand.

What is not always apparent, the good part, is that if we actually listen to the critics sometimes their misguided thoughts to justify their own opinion can offer real insight. For instance they believe the SMOT is just like a simple spring and nothing more or it may magically morph into a mythical perpetual mobile. However the inverse to their thoughts is that we want a system which can never act like a spring. You see they have just given us an answer to the single biggest problem we may encounter and under no circumstances can the system act like a simple spring or it cannot work.

Which raises the question how do we build a magnetic system which can never act like a simple spring?. Why if it were me I would look for non-linear relationships such as a spring which becomes weaker with one polarity (incoming magnet) and stronger with another polarity (outgoing magnet). Or a material which changes it's magnetic properties but only under certain specific conditions which we might control or a material which causes the field to move abruptly from one area to the next under certain conditions. I mean the critics have opened up endless possibilities due to their own indifference to the problem which they obviously have no idea how to solve... thanks critics.
It's really quite simple and in many cases we should simply do the opposite of what they are telling us.

AC

@AC - Again you offer brilliance! Insight and also offer solutions for thoughts!

Critics are a good thing! Its good to be challenged!

I get a little outraged at stupidity by blind morons that cant think rationally! For example, a Solar Sail, why would one want to use a Solar Sail, to collect all the Solar Rays and return them to the Sun? OMG What a brain dead thing to say, do or imply!!!

No! one uses the Solar Rays via the Solar Sail to invoke travel!

I am really sorry to all here reading! I am so disappointed in TinselKoala's idiotic irrational refutability's! He is totally doomed!

AC - You have provided some real insight with the DWFTTW, and also on other topics! I really do thank you for your input. We quite obviously agree on a fair bit!

Yes, systems that are able to show an un-stability, or provide conditions for non stable operations can sometimes provide a door! I like your way of thinking! A Quote: “if you have Columbic interaction, positive, negative,  you can’t have a minimum energy structure, that has, a Nucleus here, and eight electrons at a corner of a cube, because they are inverse square force laws and they can’t be a minimum energy, if it distorted it would keep going”

Hmm... I really like this quote. For anyone wondering, I have already given the references for this.

What is a Magnetic Valve? How can Magnetic Flux be Gated Efficiently? It may cost 10 watts to get 1 watt, if you're not paying for the 10 watts then why should it matter where this 10 watts come from? Its still 1 watt you have! I have given so many answers already! Everyone here should know how to do this already!

Why should it matter about the stream or the reservoir, as long as you don't have to fill the reservoir, then who really benefits from the Ram Pump? EVERYONE THAT Uses it! That's why its used in the first place! NATURE FILLS the reservoir, NATURE makes the stream flow!

NON Conventional Springs exist no matter how much Crap the Critics talk! Some critics are the representation of Failure some are Constructive!

AC Thanks! Appreciate your brilliance!

Kind Regards

  Chris

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2015, 03:15:30 AM
TinselKoala - This is the most FOOLISH Stupid, IDIOT sentence I have ever read in my entire life!

Clearly your Intellectual Handicap does not allow you to use Comprehensive Fundamental Rational reason to advance anyone or anything!

Youre a defeatist! In your heart you believe that nothing can be done!

I was 14 years old when I built my first Ram Pump, and Yes it worked. As do All Ram Pumps once constructed correctly!

The most simple thing in the world, 2 moving parts and it defeats your pathetic inability too see past your very own Ignorance!

Wow you are now the most silly person on ou.com! I am totally gob smacked at your stupidity!
 

Of course ram pumps work, and I never said they didn't. I said that they are not OU and that you cannot self-loop a system where the ram pump works without excess water flowing. And that is perfectly true. Or would you like to demonstrate otherwise? Go ahead, build a system with an upper reservoir, a ram pump and a lower reservoir, and let's see it pumping continuously from the lower to the upper.  But we all know that YOU CANNOT.

Read it and weep, insulting false claimant:

Quote
Pump Performance:[/u] <blockquote> Some information suggests that typical ram pumps discharge approximately 7 gallons of water through the waste valve for every gallon pressurized and pumped.  The percentage of the drive water delivered actually varies based on the ram construction, vertical fall to pump, and elevation to the water outlet.  The percentage of the drive water pumped to the desired point may be approximately 22% when the vertical fall from the water source to the pump is half of the elevation lift from the ram to the water outlet.  It may be as low as 2% or less when the vertical fall from the water source to the pump is 4% of the elevation lift from the ram to the water outlet.</blockquote>
http://www.clemson.edu/irrig/equip/ram.htm (http://www.clemson.edu/irrig/equip/ram.htm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wG7o8ic_OQ

Do you see all of that waste water? That is what is running your ram pump and that is why you cannot self-loop it. The ram pump pumps a _lot_ less water than it takes to run it, and that's why you cannot self-loop it without running quickly out of water. Don't believe me or the scientific analysis? THEN BUILD ONE THAT YOU CAN SELF LOOP. You can't !
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 03:17:05 AM
Uploaded on Nov 18, 2010

This is a back-up copy of a video originally posed by Roobert33 Roobert33 (now removed from his account) subsequently posted at FLek_3Hpwus

It shows a V-gate magnet motor that supposedly is made functional (rotation maintained) by means of a mechanical method for moving the stator magnets in and out of the way of the gate ("re-gauging") so that the gate doesn't become a lock-up point that otherwise would stop the motion of the magnet motor.

On Nov. 18, Roobert wrote to Stefan Hartmann at Overunity.com saying: "Yes, It was a joke that I should not do! I apologize to you and all your friends who have lost time in commenting on .... The device had to operate the magnet inside a coil that I had in my shirt."

MarkE - This is not the only replication.

No doubt Robert like others was just sick of the LUNACY of idiots criticizing his device! I know for a fact that the device works as was stated!

Hey, I must admit, I am no longer wanting to share any more because of IDIOTS like TinselKoala! Why should this IDIOT benefit from my work?

I know four other people that have working devices. They all said don't share it, don't tell people, don't try to help these idiots, but you know what, I still want to help others. Some cant be helped!

Its the old saying all over again: "Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day! Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime!" But do you know what, some refuse to hold the Fishing Rod!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 14, 2015, 03:18:54 AM
Chris
Not sure where your getting all this Bile from with Tinsel..perhaps you should calm down a bit with that?


Its not a good way to make your point , not a good way to be at all...


Thx


Chet

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 03:19:14 AM
The confession:

Quote
On Nov. 18, Roobert wrote to Stefan Hartmann at Overunity.com saying: "Yes, It was a joke that I should not do! I apologize to you and all your friends who have lost time in commenting on .... The device had to operate the magnet inside a coil that I had in my shirt."

The problem here is that the guy is lying again!  So he makes a clip that is a lie, and then he lies again when he 'confesses.'   WTF??

Mr. Super Eye (me):

Quote
He is very careful to keep the background shadows and lighting as consistent as possible to make the video appear seamless.  He does an excellent job at this but he makes one tiny slip-up around 1:32-1:33. Look very carefully at the right edge of the green paper background at 1:32 - 1:33.  Just when you know he has to make his first edit, you can see a touch of remaining shadow on the green paper background go *poof* and disappear.

@hawkiye You see the shadow receding because he is moving away.  Then there is a video edit, and the shadow suddenly goes *poof* and disappears.  If he had moved away fast enough the shadow would have been gone before he had to do the the video edit. The discontinuity in the shadow is happening at the exact time he would have to do a video edit to fake the clip.  He tried his best to make it perfect but he failed.  There are also speed changes indicating video edits.

What a world we live in when the confessors are lying again!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 03:22:22 AM
Chris
Not sure where your getting all this Bile from with Tinsel..perhaps you should calm down a bit with that?


Its not a good way to make your point , not a good way to be at all...


Thx


Chet

Chet - I agree. I have not been very professional here!

I will bring down the tempo.

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 14, 2015, 03:25:03 AM
MarkE - This is not the only replication.

No doubt Robert like others was just sick of the LUNACY of idiots criticizing his device! I know for a fact that the device works as was stated!

Hey, I must admit, I am no longer wanting to share any more because of IDIOTS like TinselKoala! Why should this IDIOT benefit from my work?

I know four other people that have working devices. They all said don't share it, don't tell people, don't try to help these idiots, but you know what, I still want to help others. Some cant be helped!

Its the old saying all over again: "Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day! Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime!" But do you know what, some refuse to hold the Fishing Rod!

You have "shared" nothing of value ever. Zero, zip, nada. Not a bit. All you are doing is trying to convince people of your false claims and give them false hopes. You can't even build anything yourself that supports your false claims about SMOTs or Ram Pumps or even Roobert's hoax! All you can do is type "IDIOT" in all caps! Why don't you try holding your breath and stomping your feet, maybe that will get your failed SMOT to work! Or maybe not.

You are hilarious, EMJunkie. Sad, but hilarious at the same time. You can't even build a SIMPLE magnetic overunity toy that actually works! You can't even build a Roobert's Calloway Gate when all the parts are laid out before you! Why not? I know why... and SO DO YOU, you false claimant you!

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 03:32:40 AM
The confession:

The problem here is that the guy is lying again!  So he makes a clip that is a lie, and then he lies again when he 'confesses.'   WTF??

Mr. Super Eye (me):

What a world we live in when the confessors are lying again!

MileHigh - You are a LIAR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPBiOccSLo

Another working device!

I have seen a WORKING Device! First hand. In my own lab. One of my good friends built it.

So who is a Liar! Milehigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 03:35:24 AM
You have "shared" nothing of value ever. Zero, zip, nada. Not a bit. All you are doing is trying to convince people of your false claims and give them false hopes. You can't even build anything yourself that supports your false claims about SMOTs or Ram Pumps or even Roobert's hoax! All you can do is type "IDIOT" in all caps! Why don't you try holding your breath and stomping your feet, maybe that will get your failed SMOT to work! Or maybe not.

You are hilarious, EMJunkie. Sad, but hilarious at the same time. You can't even build a SIMPLE magnetic overunity toy that actually works! You can't even build a Roobert's Calloway Gate when all the parts are laid out before you! Why not? I know why... and SO DO YOU, you false claimant you!

TinselKoala = Oil Company Troll!

I have references to backup all my claims, you are the one that everyone is looking at  :o
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 03:36:46 AM
TK:

The bottom line is that Chris started out as a solid block of cheese.  Then he started talking and he got qualified.  Now he is like 'aerogel' Swiss cheese.  It's a shaky structure on the verge of collapse.

You get nasty with me and I will qualify you back.

It makes me think of poor QEG Jamie, the 'engineer' that was not even able to correctly interpret his own scope traces.  They we see him like some extra in a Laurel and Hardy movie climbing up a ladder to string up a 'magic' antenna.

People make big claims and the more they speak, the more they reveal about themselves.  I am speaking mostly, but not completely, on a technical level.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 03:42:12 AM
MileHigh - You are a LIAR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPBiOccSLo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPBiOccSLo)

Another working device!

I have seen a WORKING Device! First hand. In my own lab. One of my good friends built it.

So who is a Liar! Milehigh

That German clip in what looks like a university classroom with a spinny wheel is definite proof that I am a liar!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 03:42:39 AM
TK:

The bottom line is that Chris started out as a solid block of cheese.  Then he started talking and he got qualified.  Now he is like 'aerogel' Swiss cheese.  It's a shaky structure on the verge of collapse.

You get nasty with me and I will qualify you back.

It makes me think of poor QEG Jamie, the 'engineer' that was not even able to correctly interpret his own scope traces.  They we see him like some extra in a Laurel and Hardy movie climbing up a ladder to string up a 'magic' antenna.

People make big claims and the more they speak, the more they reveal about themselves.  I am speaking mostly, but not completely, on a technical level.

MileHigh

MileHigh - You are very very mistaken! Again! I am only just getting started!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 14, 2015, 03:45:40 AM
Does anyone out there even care that Bill Alek has stolen Alfred Lambremont Webre's hair ???

For Alfreds' sake, I certainly hope he hasn't left any loose exotic technology documents lying around.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 03:47:52 AM
MileHigh - You are very very mistaken! Again! I am only just getting started!

Then describe in your own words, say four or five paragraphs, how a coil works in an electric circuit.  Treat it as a two-terminal device.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 03:49:49 AM
MarkE - This is not the only replication.

No doubt Robert like others was just sick of the LUNACY of idiots criticizing his device! I know for a fact that the device works as was stated!

Hey, I must admit, I am no longer wanting to share any more because of IDIOTS like TinselKoala! Why should this IDIOT benefit from my work?

I know four other people that have working devices. They all said don't share it, don't tell people, don't try to help these idiots, but you know what, I still want to help others. Some cant be helped!

Its the old saying all over again: "Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day! Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime!" But do you know what, some refuse to hold the Fishing Rod!
It's odd that you would select a video that the publisher admits is a fake as your second attempt at an example of a SMOT that works.  Now that we agree that this second example is a fail like the first, perhaps you would like to come up with a different example of a working SMOT.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 03:52:50 AM
Then describe in your own words, say four or five paragraphs, how a coil works in an electric circuit.  Treat it as a two-terminal device.

MileHigh - Are you a total Ignoramus? What a idiotic thing to say!

How about you go and ride your bike to the moon!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 03:55:17 AM
It's odd that you would select a video that the publisher admits is a fake as your second attempt at an example of a SMOT that works.  Now that we agree that this second example is a fail like the first, perhaps you would like to come up with a different example of a working SMOT.

Again MarkE, you provide your own opinion with no evidence!

I have seen this device work, I know it works. You are still in denial!

There are many hundreds of replications online! Anyone can make their own mind up and your opinion will not change that!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 14, 2015, 03:58:02 AM
The server is totally flaky, I am assuming that other people are experiencing the blackouts.  I have lost a handful of postings because I forget to put them in my copy/paste buffer before clicking the button.
Yes, I lost postings too...and my GIF animations are getting corrupted !!!

Typical case of a overbooked and badly configured server   >:(
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 03:59:36 AM
MileHigh - Are you a total Ignoramus? What a idiotic thing to say!

How about you go and ride your bike to the moon!

It's not the least bit idiotic and it's a Litmus test question to see if you know what you are talking about.  Can you discuss in your own words how a coil works in a circuit?

Your first response to me looks like you are panicking because in fact you can't.  So you are pretending to be dismissive.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:08:28 AM
It's not the least bit idiotic and it's a Litmus test question to see if you know what you are talking about.  Can you discuss in your own words how a coil works in a circuit?

Your first response to me looks like you are panicking because in fact you can't.  So you are pretending to be dismissive.

From one day to the next you don't know what your talking about MileHigh, how can you comprehend 5 paragraphs?

I have been building Calculators for Inductors for some 10 years. I have worked with some people that make your intelligence look like a dribbly simpleton stuck in a rubber room dribbling on your self! I have not a single bit of anything to provide to you on demand! Get over you pathetic Ignorant rants of leadership!

You have no credentials that impress me Milehigh, none!

All anyone here needs do is visit my site and they can see right away my site contains more about inductors than you will ever know in your entire life! So your stupidity has tripped you up yet again!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:11:06 AM
It's not the least bit idiotic and it's a Litmus test question to see if you know what you are talking about.  Can you discuss in your own words how a coil works in a circuit?

Your first response to me looks like you are panicking because in fact you can't.  So you are pretending to be dismissive.

In a node what would one find MileHigh? What sort of answer have you?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:16:22 AM
In a node what would one find MileHigh? What sort of answer have you?

Okay Chris so you can't answer my question.  The option for you to answer is always open.

How about Plan B?   I will describe a ridiculously simple circuit, so simple it is trivial, and I will ask you to give me the answer for how it works.  Are you up to that?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:16:42 AM
It's not the least bit idiotic and it's a Litmus test question to see if you know what you are talking about.  Can you discuss in your own words how a coil works in a circuit?

Your first response to me looks like you are panicking because in fact you can't.  So you are pretending to be dismissive.

Why is it that the Speed of Light is not the Constant used in Coax, and only 62%? What sort of answer have you MileHigh?

All questions that one can COPY PASTE from the net but I know you will answer truthfully when you answer!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:17:56 AM
Okay Chris so you can't answer my question.  The option for you to answer is always open.

How about Plan B?   I will describe a ridiculously simple circuit, so simple it is trivial, and I will ask you to give me the answer for how it works.  Are you up to that?

You have proven my point, you are not willing to do it in reverse! See where you come unstuck!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:19:38 AM
Why is it that the Speed of Light is not the Constant used in Coax, and only 62%? What sort of answer have you MileHigh?

All questions that one can COPY PASTE from the net but I know you will answer truthfully when you answer!

It's because the impedance of the medium (inside the coax) is not the same as the impedance of free space.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:22:01 AM
You have proven my point, you are not willing to do it in reverse! See where you come unstuck!

I asked you first Chris.  I went to your page.  I am not getting a vibe that there is a lot of expertise about inductors there.

So, are you willing to take up the "Plan B challenge?"   It's going to be a ridiculously simple circuit and a ridiculously simple question, I assure you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:23:12 AM
It's because the impedance of the medium (inside the coax) is not the same as the impedance of free space.

But why, other copper cables are 89%
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:26:53 AM
But why, other copper cables are 89%

Copper cables are not coaxial cables.  Every setup will have it's characteristic impedance and the formula for the speed is something like the square root of the permittivity divided by the permeability.   That's probably wrong but it is in the ballpark.  I would have to go look it up but I am not going to bother.  It's all part of transmission line theory.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:27:35 AM
So are you up to the question or not?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:30:27 AM
So are you up to the question or not?

Ask away, My electronics is OK, my Magnetics is much better.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:33:19 AM
Copper cables are not coaxial cables.  Every setup will have it's characteristic impedance and the formula for the speed is something like the square root of the permittivity divided by the permeability.   That's probably wrong but it is in the ballpark.  I would have to go look it up but I am not going to bother.  It's all part of transmission line theory.

Ok, so here you prove my point again. Look we cant all know everything all the time. I am not going to nail you to the wall on this! Because really I don't care if you don't know the real reason why.

Still, your demand is a ridiculous one and proves nothing! It is not constructive and helps no-one!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 04:35:18 AM
Copper cables are not coaxial cables.  Every setup will have it's characteristic impedance and the formula for the speed is something like the square root of the permittivity divided by the permeability.   That's probably wrong but it is in the ballpark.  I would have to go look it up but I am not going to bother.  It's all part of transmission line theory.
In a lossless transmission line the propagation velocity is:  c/(uR*eR)0.5.  Most of the time in cables and etch inside printed wiring boards, uR is close to 1.0 and it is the eR that sets the velocity.  Typical printed circuit boards have eR values of 4-5 so the velocity is half or less of c inside the board.  The speed actually varies depending on how much of the fiberglass is glass and how much is resin.  At the ferocious data rates that we have today that can be a big problem because how traces line up with the glass bundles changes their timing.  In a coaxial cable that uses very low density PTFE foam the average eR is only about  1.5 and the velocity is about 0.8 c.  Higher density of PTFE increases the eR and further reduces the propagation velocity.  Traces that run on the top side of the circuit board send some of the energy through air above the trace and other energy through the board material underneath the trace.  These components run at different speeds and that distorts the signals.  But what can really drive fast signals batty is the protective nickel plating that is often applied between outside traces and gold top finish.  Nickel has a high uR. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:37:11 AM
Okay, here we go.

The circuit is just a variable power supply connected to a coil - that's it, nothing else.   The coil is 2 Henries.   The coil is an ideal coil with zero wire resistance.  The power supply is an ideal power supply with zero output impedance.

At the start of the test (time zero), the power supply outputs 7 volts.   After five seconds, the power supply outputs 5 volts.

Please describe what happens with this circuit starting from time zero.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:39:02 AM
In a lossless transmission line the propagation velocity is:  c/(uR*eR)0.5.  Most of the time in cables and etch inside printed wiring boards, uR is close to 1.0 and it is the eR that sets the velocity.  Typical printed circuit boards have eR values of 4-5 so the velocity is half or less of c inside the board.  The speed actually varies depending on how much of the fiberglass is glass and how much is resin.  At the ferocious data rates that we have today that can be a big problem because how traces line up with the glass bundles changes their timing.  In a coaxial cable that uses low density PTFE foam the average eR is only about  1.2 and the velocity is about 0.9 c.  Traces that run on the top side of the circuit board send some of the energy through air above the trace and other energy through the board material underneath the trace.  These components run at different speeds and that distorts the signals.  But what can really drive fast signals batty is the protective nickel plating that is often applied between outside traces and gold top finish.  Nickel has a high uR.

Ok, not bad MarkE. We can markE this as an answer because its close enough to what I was looking for.

See My point MileHigh!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:40:54 AM
In a lossless transmission line the propagation velocity is:  c/(uR*eR)0.5.  Most of the time in cables and etch inside printed wiring boards, uR is close to 1.0 and it is the eR that sets the velocity.  Typical printed circuit boards have eR values of 4-5 so the velocity is half or less of c inside the board.  The speed actually varies depending on how much of the fiberglass is glass and how much is resin.  At the ferocious data rates that we have today that can be a big problem because how traces line up with the glass bundles changes their timing.  In a coaxial cable that uses very low density PTFE foam the average eR is only about  1.5 and the velocity is about 0.8 c.  Higher density of PTFE increases the eR and further reduces the propagation velocity.  Traces that run on the top side of the circuit board send some of the energy through air above the trace and other energy through the board material underneath the trace.  These components run at different speeds and that distorts the signals.  But what can really drive fast signals batty is the protective nickel plating that is often applied between outside traces and gold top finish.  Nickel has a high uR.

You are amazing Mark.  As you know, 25 years ago, clock frequencies were much lower and you could pretty much ignore this stuff.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:42:03 AM
Ok, not bad MarkE. We can markE this as an answer because its close enough to what I was looking for.

See My point MileHigh!

I gave you the real short answer - the impedance of the medium determines the velocity.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 04:42:45 AM
You are amazing Mark.  As you know, 25 years ago, clock frequencies were much lower and you could pretty much ignore this stuff.
We are approaching 48Gbps over a single pair with goals to get to 100Gbps before the end of the decade.  We are talking very wicked fast.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:45:02 AM
We are approaching 48Gbps over a single pair with goals to get to 100Gbps before the end of the decade.  We are talking very wicked fast.

The entire Library of Congress in 17.9 seconds!  lol
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:47:31 AM
Okay, here we go.

The circuit is just a variable power supply connected to a coil - that's it, nothing else.   The coil is 2 Henries.   The coil is an ideal coil with zero wire resistance.  The power supply is an ideal power supply with zero output impedance.

At the start of the test (time zero), the power supply outputs 7 volts.   After five seconds, the power supply outputs 5 volts.

Please describe what happens with this circuit starting from time zero.

MileHigh - Please describe what conditions the Power Supply is under during the Test, you said Variable! What is the variance due to the test and applied conditions - Not enough Information Provided.

Any coil that has a Voltage applied to it will see a Charging Time Constant!!! this is T=L/R - 5 Time Constants charge the Coil to 99.3% of its total applied charge vs the Voltage Applied. The Magnetic Field stores the Energy in the following formula: 1/2 LI^2

Current I would normally lag the Voltage by a phase angle. This would then catch up as the Time Constants move from 0.

Again you have not provided enough information as to why the Power supply shows a lower Voltage. I can only assume that its source impedance is to low for the current drawn.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 04:50:29 AM
I gave you the real short answer - the impedance of the medium determines the velocity.

No you did not give me the answer as to why. You gave me a verification of the drop not why!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 04:51:06 AM
Before time zero the output from the power supply is zero volts.  Then for 5 seconds the output from the power supply is 7 volts.  After 5 seconds the output from the power supply is 5 volts.  This is a given.

There is no resistance anywhere in the circuit.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:01:07 AM
Before time zero the output from the power supply is zero volts.  Then for 5 seconds the output from the power supply is 7 volts.  After 5 seconds the output from the power supply is 5 volts.  This is a given.

There is no resistance anywhere in the circuit.

So if I understand you correctly, then I have answered your question!

Lets hear your desired answer?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:06:35 AM
So if I understand you correctly, then I have answered your question!

Lets hear your desired answer?

C'mon Chris, get real please.  Please post your answer.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 14, 2015, 05:08:41 AM
The chicken or the egg...which came first ?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:14:20 AM
C'mon Chris, get real please.  Please post your answer.

MileHigh - I have answered your question with more than enough information as to what could be going on! Anyone here can see that!

I suggest you be a little more specific as to what you're looking for if I have not given you what you are looking for. User Defined variables, eg user adjustments to the Variable power supply over time and so on.

If you're trying to be cryptic or avoid the actual test you proposed then you will fail in misery again because you have already defined the test.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 14, 2015, 05:16:00 AM
You can call aeronautical SME's "back yard boys" if you like.  In any event, they knew their subject matter backwards and forwards.  They: came up with the concept, proved it on paper (simulations), and then went and built a working proof of concept.  Analysis, simulation, and experiment all correlated.  A lot of smart people were deceived by their own intuition.  That happens.  That's why reliable data always tells the real story.
The same could be done with a boat and flowing river I recon.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:16:18 AM
There are only two variables.  The voltage is already defined.  Solve for the current.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:16:27 AM
The chicken or the egg...which came first ?

@Cap-Z-ro - Feels a bit this way doesn't it! I wonder if there might be a Hedge Hog thrown in there too?

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:20:17 AM
There are only two variables.  The voltage is already defined.  Solve for the current.

You said no resistance so the only variable is Inductive Reactance which I am not going to give you an answer for!

To many un-knowns to give an answer that could be considered accurate.

Wire size could be 12Awg or it could be 32Awg, to many variables and this will change it all! Size of the coil, Length, W x H or 2piR...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 14, 2015, 05:22:25 AM
@Cap-Z-ro - Feels a bit this way doesn't it! I wonder if there might be a Hedge Hog thrown in there too?

Kind Regards

  Chris

MH:

This is Chris's way of telling you that he can not answer the question.  You have to read between the lines.  I can't answer it either, but that is neither here, nor there.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:26:56 AM
You said no resistance so the only variable is Inductive Reactance which I am not going to give you an answer for!

To many un-knowns to give an answer that could be considered accurate.

Wire size could be 12Awg or it could be 32Awg, to many variables and this will change it all! Size of the coil, Length, W x H or 2piR...

The question has been fully defined.

So you see Chris, a circuit with a single lousy component, basically as simple as a circuit can be, and you are not capable of answering the question.

You are going to have to think about that one.  All your bluster and chest puffing and demeaning remarks, and you can't answer how a circuit works that consists of a single solitary inductor and a power supply.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:29:47 AM
MH:

This is Chris's way of telling you that he can not answer the question.  You have to read between the lines.  I can't answer it either, but that is neither here, nor there.

Bill

No Bill - this is my way of saying that if you take my legs I cant walk.

Resistance is an important variable in knowing what current will be drawn. Anyone here will accept that fact, only you cant see this!

Inductive reactance is the other variable and it will be only a small part of the equation.

So if you think you're really smart now - You are still not!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:31:49 AM
How would inductive reactance relate to my circuit?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 05:31:51 AM
MileHigh - Please describe what conditions the Power Supply is under during the Test, you said Variable! What is the variance due to the test and applied conditions - Not enough Information Provided.

Any coil that has a Voltage applied to it will see a Charging Time Constant!!! this is T=L/R - 5 Time Constants charge the Coil to 99.3% of its total applied charge vs the Voltage Applied. The Magnetic Field stores the Energy in the following formula: 1/2 LI^2

Current I would normally lag the Voltage by a phase angle. This would then catch up as the Time Constants move from 0.

Again you have not provided enough information as to why the Power supply shows a lower Voltage. I can only assume that its source impedance is to low for the current drawn.
Since MH did not specify the problem from negative infinity to positive infinity it is a time domain problem and no phase angle may be inferred.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 05:32:53 AM
Before time zero the output from the power supply is zero volts.  Then for 5 seconds the output from the power supply is 7 volts.  After 5 seconds the output from the power supply is 5 volts.  This is a given.

There is no resistance anywhere in the circuit.
Resistance is futile!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:33:34 AM
Famous quotes:

Quote
All anyone here needs do is visit my site and they can see right away my site contains more about inductors than you will ever know in your entire life! So your stupidity has tripped you up yet again!

!Creo que no!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:34:31 AM
The question has been fully defined.

So you see Chris, a circuit with a single lousy component, basically as simple as a circuit can be, and you are not capable of answering the question.

You are going to have to think about that one.  All your bluster and chest puffing and demeaning remarks, and you can't answer how a circuit works that consists of a single solitary inductor and a power supply.

MileHigh - I answered your question with MUCH better detail than you answered mine!

MileHigh - Please describe what conditions the Power Supply is under during the Test, you said Variable! What is the variance due to the test and applied conditions - Not enough Information Provided.

Any coil that has a Voltage applied to it will see a Charging Time Constant!!! this is T=L/R - 5 Time Constants charge the Coil to 99.3% of its total applied charge vs the Voltage Applied. The Magnetic Field stores the Energy in the following formula: 1/2 LI^2

Current I would normally lag the Voltage by a phase angle. This would then catch up as the Time Constants move from 0.

Again you have not provided enough information as to why the Power supply shows a lower Voltage. I can only assume that its source impedance is to low for the current drawn.

1: You did not ask for current:

Okay, here we go.

The circuit is just a variable power supply connected to a coil - that's it, nothing else.   The coil is 2 Henries.   The coil is an ideal coil with zero wire resistance.  The power supply is an ideal power supply with zero output impedance.

At the start of the test (time zero), the power supply outputs 7 volts.   After five seconds, the power supply outputs 5 volts.

Please describe what happens with this circuit starting from time zero.

2: you have changed what you are looking for half way though the test - This show what sort of person you really are!

I answered your question! Much better than you answered mine! I am right in what I answered! Anyone here can see this!

You have distorted this whole thing like I knew you would!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:35:00 AM
Since MH did not specify the problem from negative infinity to positive infinity it is a time domain problem and no phase angle may be inferred.

I am relying on the testee to make an intelligent assumption about time zero.  Or to ask an intelligent question.   :)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:38:23 AM
MileHigh - I answered your question with MUCH better detail than you answered mine!

1: You did not ask for current:

2: you have changed what you are looking for half way though the test - This show what sort of person you really are!

I answered your question! Much better than you answered mine! I am right in what I answered! Anyone here can see this!

You have distorted this whole thing like I knew you would!

Chris, you are supposed to be smart enough to realize that the only unknown in the circuit is the current.   Then afterwards I told you that you have to solve for the current.

And you can't answer the question.  Your protests are not sticking to the wall.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 14, 2015, 05:41:23 AM
No Bill - ...

...if you think you're really smart now - You are still not!

But he IS google smart...and may even be a dubble knot spy too.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:44:48 AM
Chris, you are supposed to be smart enough to realize that the only unknown in the circuit is the current.   Then afterwards I told you that you have to solve for the current.

And you can't answer the question.  Your protests are not sticking to the wall.

OMG - I just said this! Are you deaf and dumb!

A reliable Current Calculation can not be obtained!

MileHigh you have proved to the whole community how silly you are!

So you have inadvertently accepted my answer as being correct!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 05:45:17 AM
You said no resistance so the only variable is Inductive Reactance which I am not going to give you an answer for!

To many un-knowns to give an answer that could be considered accurate.

Wire size could be 12Awg or it could be 32Awg, to many variables and this will change it all! Size of the coil, Length, W x H or 2piR...
XL is a frequency domain concept.  This is a time domain problem.  It can be solved with the information MH has supplied.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:47:46 AM
Chris, you are supposed to be smart enough to realize that the only unknown in the circuit is the current.   Then afterwards I told you that you have to solve for the current.

And you can't answer the question.  Your protests are not sticking to the wall.

OMG - I just said this! Are you deaf and dumb!

A reliable Current Calculation can not be obtained! Let me show you what I wrote:

Resistance is an important variable in knowing what current will be drawn. Anyone here will accept that fact, only you cant see this!

Inductive reactance is the other variable and it will be only a small part of the equation.

MileHigh you have proved to the whole community how silly you are!

So you have inadvertently accepted my answer as being correct!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:48:01 AM
Quote
A reliable Current Calculation can not be obtained!

You bet your sweet bippy you can solve for the current.

No whining, no protestations please.   Please try to answer the question about the circuit or admit that you can't do it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:48:55 AM
XL is a frequency domain concept.  This is a time domain problem.  It can be solved with the information MH has supplied.

MarkE - I disagree! Not accurately!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 05:50:10 AM
Let me know if you want a big fat clue and I will give it to you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 05:54:39 AM
MarkE - I disagree! Not accurately!
Would the current be solvable accurately if MH were to answer one question?  If so, what would that question be?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:54:51 AM
You bet your sweet bippy you can solve for the current.

No whining, no protestations please.   Please try to answer the question about the circuit or admit that you can't do it.

MileHigh - You're a Time waster. I already told you I can not solve this test accurately!

As you failed in my test, you can gloat that I was not able to give you what you wanted in your test. Do you feel better now?

I don't agree at all, for one single minute that any answer will be accurate, it will be a rough approximation only and I am not going down that path. For me on the bench I would. Not for you!

So here in lies the question, have you proven anything here? Do you feel comfortable within your self that you have bent enough rules to satisfy your rudimentary test results. Does this help anyone, will it help anyone? Are you smarter for it?

I know one thing, I am pleased you went through this here!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 05:58:26 AM
Would the current be solvable accurately if MH were to answer one question?  If so, what would that question be?

once more variables are defined, it is easy to solve.

See, you, mileHigh and TinselKoala do things in this forum to suit yourselves! In the answer the inductor parameters would be defined so as to solve for current. People see through this behaviour!

People here can already see this!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:00:06 AM
As a side comment I will say something I have said before:  95% of the people that experiment on the forums and play with coils all the time don't even understand how they work.

And it is self-evident that Chris falls within the 95% group.

It's not really a problem, all that you have to do is undertake to educate yourself if you want to play with coils and get more out of your experiments.

The point was to bring you back down to Earth, because the fake and pretentious rhetoric and nasty comments were too much.  No Bloch wall, no fancy shenanigans with magnetic fields.  That's the lesson you should get out of this.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:00:30 AM
once more variables are defined, it is easy to solve.

See, you, mileHigh and TinselKoala do things in this forum to suit yourselves! In the answer the inductor parameters would be defined so as to solve for current. People see through this behaviour!

People here can already see this!

Its cheating if the answer contains part of the question - Know what this makes you?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:02:22 AM
MileHigh - You're a Time waster. I already told you I can not solve this test accurately!

As you failed in my test, you can gloat that I was not able to give you what you wanted in your test. Do you feel better now?

I don't agree at all, for one single minute that any answer will be accurate, it will be a rough approximation only and I am not going down that path. For me on the bench I would. Not for you!

So here in lies the question, have you proven anything here? Do you feel comfortable within your self that you have bent enough rules to satisfy your rudimentary test results. Does this help anyone, will it help anyone? Are you smarter for it?

I know one thing, I am pleased you went through this here!

Just list your questions about the circuit and I will answer them to the best of my abilities.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:02:38 AM
As a side comment I will say something I have said before:  95% of the people that experiment on the forums and play with coils all the time don't even understand how they work.

And it is self-evident that Chris falls within the 95% group.

It's not really a problem, all that you have to do is undertake to educate yourself if you want to play with coils and get more out of your experiments.

The point was to bring you back down to Earth, because the fake and pretentious rhetoric and nasty comments were too much.  No Bloch wall, no fancy shenanigans with magnetic fields.  That's the lesson you should get out of this.

MileHigh - Youre a thalidomide - all Mouth and no action! You have proven Nothing here!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:03:20 AM
Just list your questions about the circuit and I will answer them to the best of my abilities.

Lets hear your answer!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:06:20 AM
Lets hear your answer!

Since you can't answer, how about I give you the big fat clue?

i(t) = 1/L integral v(t) dt
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 06:06:31 AM
once more variables are defined, it is easy to solve.

See, you, mileHigh and TinselKoala do things in this forum to suit yourselves! In the answer the inductor parameters would be defined so as to solve for current. People see through this behaviour!

People here can already see this!
It's trivial to solve as presently stated.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:12:26 AM
Since you can't answer, how about I give you the big fat clue?

i(t) = 1/L integral v(t) dt

Which gives an approximation and is certainly not by any means considered Accurate - What is wrong with you people?

Again you have proven nothing with this exercise in Blowing Hard!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:14:34 AM
Since you can't answer, how about I give you the big fat clue?

i(t) = 1/L integral v(t) dt

dt can be 1ms or one hour and give a TOTALLY different result depending on the Inductor Parameters!

WOW - You Foolish little Man!

Tripped up again by your stupidity MileHigh!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 06:15:47 AM
dt can be 1ms or one hour and give a TOTALLY different result depending on the Inductor Parameters!

WOW - You Foolish little Man!

Tripped up again by your stupidity MileHigh!
dt is not a unit of time.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:16:15 AM
'dt' is the limit as you approach zero.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:16:45 AM
dt is not a unit of time.

Maybe a bucket of fish then?

What is dt then MarkE?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:18:11 AM
Chris you are throwing around a lot of insults in a panic but how about results?

Is the clue helping or do you give up and want the answer?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 06:18:59 AM
Pencils down.  The answer to the problem as stated is readily solved as below:

I from 0s to 5s is:

I0  + 3.5A/s

I beyond 5s is:

I0  + 17.5A + 2.5A/s * (T-5s)


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:21:27 AM
The inductor parameters are "2 Henries."

Thanks Mark for the graph and the whole nine yards!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 06:23:48 AM
Maybe a bucket of fish then?

What is dt then MarkE?
dt signifies that the integral is with respect to time.  How that bears on the solution depends on the order of t in the integral.  In MH's example, the order is zero.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:24:16 AM
Chris you are throwing around a lot of insults in a panic but how about results?

Is the clue helping or do you give up and want the answer?

MileHigh - You're game playing and I don't like it! Its all you do.

Insults are directed at you simply because of your stupidity! Game Playing is for stupid people that have nothing better to do in their day! dt is normally considered to be a measure in time and you have again redefined the rules on the table!

You're a time waster like I said! You get paid to do it!

There is no practical benefit to being an A-Hole here! Unless you get paid to do it!

I am no longer playing your games, play your games with MarkE and TinselKoala - Try kiss n Catch first you may find a new hobby!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:26:32 AM
Chris:

I am going to gloat a bit and you are going to eat some humble pie.  It's a little bit of poetic justice.  You should learn from this.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:26:38 AM
dt signifies that the integral is with respect to time.  How that bears on the solution depends on the order of t in the integral.  In MH's example, the order is zero.

OMG - MORE RULE Changing!

It is, its not, it is its not....

Again no ACCURATE RESULT CAN BE OBTAINED!!!!!!!

Now you two have proven it beyond a doubt!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:27:39 AM
Chris:

I am going to gloat a bit and you are going to eat some humble pie.  It's a little bit of poetic justice.  You should learn from this.

MileHigh

MileHigh - You should learn from being wrong about my question also!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 06:30:16 AM
OMG - MORE RULE Changing!

It is, its not, it is its not....

Again no ACCURATE RESULT CAN BE OBTAINED!!!!!!!

Now you two have proven it beyond a doubt!
You are completely FoS.  Under the hypothetical conditions MH set the answer is completely deterministic.  From 0 to 5s the current is exactly the starting current plus 3.5A/s.  Beyond 5s it is exactly the starting current plus 17.5A plus 2.5A/s.  There is no accuracy issue.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:31:51 AM
MileHigh - You're game playing and I don't like it! Its all you do.

Insults are directed at you simply because of your stupidity! Game Playing is for stupid people that have nothing better to do in their day! dt is normally considered to be a measure in time and you have again redefined the rules on the table!

You're a time waster like I said! You get paid to do it!

There is no practical benefit to being an A-Hole here! Unless you get paid to do it!

I am no longer playing your games, play your games with MarkE and TinselKoala - Try kiss n Catch first you may find a new hobby!

Bullshit.  There were no games.  No rules were redefined.  I gave you a perfectly legitimate question.  You look stupid now.  Don't you give me that bullshit about getting paid.

You were the asshole, no doubt about that.   You couldn't solve an electronics question for a circuit with one lousy component.  Think about that next time you are on the bench and ask yourself, "What am I really doing here?"

You are running away now?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:33:39 AM
MileHigh - You should learn from being wrong about my question also!

MileHigh - You know I am already eating Victory Pie - I already was right about your question!

Your equation will change depending on the Inductor.

2 Henrys with 7 volts is not enough information to get an accurate answer! If the inductor is 4m x 4m square, it will give a totally different current to 10mm x 10mm Inductor!

Your answer to your questions Only Gives An Approximation!

If you think this is an accurate answer you're fooling yourself!

You changed the answer you were looking for half way through the test simply because you again underestimated me - Your best ability is making Assumptions!


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 06:34:34 AM
Bullshit.  There were no games.  No rules were redefined.  I gave you a perfectly legitimate question.  You look stupid now.  Don't you give me that bullshit about getting paid.

You were the asshole, no doubt about that.   You couldn't solve an electronics question for a circuit with one lousy component.  Think about that next time you are on the bench and ask yourself, "What am I really doing here?"

You are running away now?

YES SIR - you are playing Games!

Games that you change to suit yourself, when you need to!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:35:29 AM
MileHigh - You know I am already eating Victory Pie - I already was right about your question!

Your equation will change depending on the Inductor.

2 Henrys with 7 volts is not enough information to get an accurate answer! If the inductor is 4m x 4m square, it will give a totally different current to 10mm x 10mm Inductor!

Your answer to your questions Only Gives An Approximation!

If you think this is an accurate answer you're fooling yourself!

You changed the answer you were looking for half way through the test simply because you again underestimated me - Your best ability is making Assumptions!

You are just showing that you are clueless now.  I didn't change a damn thing.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 14, 2015, 07:03:05 AM
No Bill - this is my way of saying that if you take my legs I cant walk.

So if you think you're really smart now - You are still not!


What part of "I don't know the answer either..." in my post did you not understand?

I am intelligent, I am not anywhere near as educated in the electronics field as these guys you are arguing with.  Electronics is one of my hobbies, I have only been studying it for the past 7 years or so.  I have learned a lot from these fellows, which I greatly appreciate.  I know a lot more now than I did even a year ago.  It is a process, a learning process.

When you think you know it all, you stop learning, and that is sad for anyone.

Tinman has a lot of respect on here and is capable of debating his points.  He has said that he respects the knowledge of these other fellows you call idiots.  He just does not agree with them in this one certain area.  They also acknowledge Tinman's work.  They can debate, which is good for everyone.  In the end, someone will be right, and the other mistaken but, that mistaken person, or persons, will have learned something, as will have all of us watching over here.

Take a lesson from Tinman and debate, not argue and name call, and you might just learn something from these other fellows as well no matter who turns out to be correct.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 07:12:13 AM
MileHigh - You know I am already eating Victory Pie - I already was right about your question!

Your equation will change depending on the Inductor.

2 Henrys with 7 volts is not enough information to get an accurate answer! If the inductor is 4m x 4m square, it will give a totally different current to 10mm x 10mm Inductor!
LOL, that is total nonsense.
Quote

Your answer to your questions Only Gives An Approximation!

If you think this is an accurate answer you're fooling yourself!

You changed the answer you were looking for half way through the test simply because you again underestimated me - Your best ability is making Assumptions!
You are just FoS.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 07:19:40 AM
You are running away now?

No - staying right here, just not playing your GAMES! DO you deny that the equation you presented is ONLY an Approximation?

Admit it!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 07:47:45 AM
What part of "I don't know the answer either..." in my post did you not understand?

I am intelligent, I am not anywhere near as educated in the electronics field as these guys you are arguing with.  Electronics is one of my hobbies, I have only been studying it for the past 7 years or so.  I have learned a lot from these fellows, which I greatly appreciate.  I know a lot more now than I did even a year ago.  It is a process, a learning process.

When you think you know it all, you stop learning, and that is sad for anyone.

Tinman has a lot of respect on here and is capable of debating his points.  He has said that he respects the knowledge of these other fellows you call idiots.  He just does not agree with them in this one certain area.  They also acknowledge Tinman's work.  They can debate, which is good for everyone.  In the end, someone will be right, and the other mistaken but, that mistaken person, or persons, will have learned something, as will have all of us watching over here.

Take a lesson from Tinman and debate, not argue and name call, and you might just learn something from these other fellows as well no matter who turns out to be correct.

Bill

Bill - I don't understand any simpleton dribble Sorry!!! Please go and actually read the posts, you obviously have not because you're rambling PIFFLE!!!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 14, 2015, 07:54:11 AM
Bill - I don't understand any simpleton dribble Sorry!!! Please go and actually read the posts, you obviously have not because you're rambling PIFFLE!!!

So I guess that is a big no then.  You did not understand right?

Good to be able to admit that.

Bill

PS  I not only read the post, I copied it for you in my question.  I tried to make it easy for you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 14, 2015, 07:55:42 AM
Waitress, could we please get some coffee for Joel over here to go with his humble pie?

Thank you.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 08:28:45 AM
PS  I not only read the post, I copied it for you in my question.  I tried to make it easy for you.

Well Done Bill! Have a wee sleep after that one  ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 08:31:56 AM
Pencils down.  The answer to the problem as stated is readily solved as below:

I from 0s to 5s is:

I0  + 3.5A/s

I beyond 5s is:

I0  + 17.5A + 2.5A/s * (T-5s)

Mark - I will say, this is perhaps the most constructive post on this thread!

Well Done! You too now deserve a wee sleep  ;)

You know, I have just the slightest little bit of respect for you now - You put MileHigh to shame here in one post! Well done!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 08:57:56 AM
Mark - I will say, this is perhaps the most constructive post on this thread!

Well Done! You too now deserve a wee sleep  ;)

You know, I have just the slightest little bit of respect for you now - You put MileHigh to shame here in one post! Well done!
You have shamed yourself.  Contrary to your claims, the current function versus time is easily determined.  It does not depend on the inductor package or any of the other red herrings that you threw out.  It depends on the integral of V/L dt as MH posted.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 09:14:26 AM
You have shamed yourself.  Contrary to your claims, the current function versus time is easily determined.  It does not depend on the inductor package or any of the other red herrings that you threw out.  It depends on the integral of V/L dt as MH posted.

MarkE Shame is on MileHigh's plate, I carry not a single bit of shame!

I answered the question, the answer I gave was correct for the question! No matter how much Crap Spouts from your Blow Hole!

MileHish is wrong and you also will not admit to the equation you posted being an approximation!

This puts you and mileHigh in the Lunatic Basket! Clinically!

Anyone here can already see this, even well before I came along!






Wow you, MileHigh and TinselKoala have made some enemy's here in this forum!






I have four, including BillyGoats Gruff - But I don't mind him because he is just simple and follows the leader, which he thinks is you and mileHigh.

 

You know, for an ex-hacker, youre not bad at getting to information quickly! Is it Wikkipedia or do you have a SQLDB setup for the quick ones?

Doesn't make you smart though! Again you lack all native intelligence! A balloon holds Hot Air too!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 14, 2015, 09:42:09 AM
MileHish is wrong and you also will not admit to the equation you posted being an approximation!
It is not an approximation for an ideal lumped circuit.

Even if you could not evaluate an integral, at least writing that the current increases linearly at a higher rate between 0-5s and a linearly but at a lower rate after 5s would be an indication that you understand something about this problem.

Your attempt to apply a frequency domain AC technique such as the "inductive reactance" to a transient state problem in a time domain, is an indication that you don't have a clue about basic electronics.

Complaining about the zero resistance in an Ohm's law relation misapplied to this problem, is another indication.



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 09:51:19 AM
It is not an approximation for an ideal lumped circuit.

Even if you could not evaluate an integral, at least writing that the current increases linearly at a higher rate between 0-5s and a linearly but at a lower rate after 5s would be an indication that you understand something about this problem.

Your attempt to apply frequency domain AC technique such as the "inductive reactance" to a transient state in a time domain, is an indication that you don't have a clue about basic electronics.

NoBull - Just in case you have NOT READ ths Posts:

Ask away, My electronics is OK, my Magnetics is much better.


You have shown the very same rediculious behaviour of a child - Grow Up you FOOLISH Idiot!

I made no claims here you stupid FOOL

To imply "you don't have a clue about basic electronics" because I could not give the desired answer a question that was changed half way through the test, after already admitting I am Ok in Electronics does nothing but prove to everyone here that YOU NoBull are an Idiot!

A Stupid Foolish Idiot that cant use any common-sense!

Again, this proves nothing, you as mileHigh and MarkE  have proved, is just a bunch of non-sense that fills the mind of morons.

I cant believe your Babbyish behaviour! You Child!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 09:56:12 AM
MarkE Shame is on MileHigh's plate, I carry not a single bit of shame!
Then you make yourself a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.  Until the trivial any college EE student could easily derive answer was spoon fed to you, you offered lots of red herrings:  going off on frequency domain parameters in this time domain problem, talking about inductor package size etc.  Any claims you now make to supposedly having understood the problem fall flat.
Quote

I answered the question, the answer I gave was correct for the question! No matter how much Crap Spouts from your Blow Hole!
No your answers were all fails. 
Quote

MileHish is wrong and you also will not admit to the equation you posted being an approximation!
MH stipulated an ideal inductor in a circuit with no resistance and a perfect voltage source.  If you are going to try and suggest that we consider propagation effects on a 2H coil it is a distinction without difference.
Quote

This puts you and mileHigh in the Lunatic Basket! Clinically!
I see you want to play a clown again.  As you wish.
Quote

Anyone here can already see this, even well before I came along!






Wow you, MileHigh and TinselKoala have made some enemy's here in this forum!






I have four, including BillyGoats Gruff - But I don't mind him because he is just simple and follows the leader, which he thinks is you and mileHigh.

 

You know, for an ex-hacker, youre not bad at getting to information quickly! Is it Wikkipedia or do you have a SQLDB setup for the quick ones?

Doesn't make you smart though! Again you lack all native intelligence! A balloon holds Hot Air too!
That kind of response is just sad.  Why do you do such things to yourself?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 09:59:55 AM
Then you make yourself a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.  Until the trivial any college EE student could easily derive answer was spoon fed to you, you offered lots of red herrings:  going off on frequency domain parameters in this time domain problem, talking about inductor package size etc.  Any claims you now make to supposedly having understood the problem fall flat.No your answers were all fails.  MH stipulated an ideal inductor in a circuit with no resistance and a perfect voltage source.  If you are going to try and suggest that we consider propagation effects on a 2H coil it is a distinction without difference.I see you want to play a clown again.  As you wish.That kind of response is just sad.  Why do you do such things to yourself?

Only Clown in the Room is MarkE, with his jester and best friend MileHigh, with the friendly little kitten NoBull

Seriously, you are idiots!

Oil Company Troll Idiots!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:20:50 AM
Milehigh Failed miserably at a Litmus test question to see if he knew what he was talking about.

The question:
Why is it that the Speed of Light is not the Constant used in Coax, and only 62%?

Then brilliance, he agrees with the question:

It's because the impedance of the medium (inside the coax) is not the same as the impedance of free space.

I re-defined the question:

But why, other copper cables are 89%

Then a display of Ignorance and more Assumptions:

Copper cables are not coaxial cables.  Every setup will have it's characteristic impedance and the formula for the speed is something like the square root of the permittivity divided by the permeability.   That's probably wrong but it is in the ballpark.  I would have to go look it up but I am not going to bother.  It's all part of transmission line theory.

So I give some rope:

Ok, so here you prove my point again. Look we cant all know everything all the time. I am not going to nail you to the wall on this! Because really I don't care if you don't know the real reason why.

Still, your demand is a ridiculous one and proves nothing! It is not constructive and helps no-one!

Then MarkE come in and saves MileHigh's ass:

In a lossless transmission line the propagation velocity is:  c/(uR*eR)0.5.  Most of the time in cables and etch inside printed wiring boards, uR is close to 1.0 and it is the eR that sets the velocity.  Typical printed circuit boards have eR values of 4-5 so the velocity is half or less of c inside the board.  The speed actually varies depending on how much of the fiberglass is glass and how much is resin.  At the ferocious data rates that we have today that can be a big problem because how traces line up with the glass bundles changes their timing.  In a coaxial cable that uses very low density PTFE foam the average eR is only about  1.5 and the velocity is about 0.8 c.  Higher density of PTFE increases the eR and further reduces the propagation velocity.  Traces that run on the top side of the circuit board send some of the energy through air above the trace and other energy through the board material underneath the trace.  These components run at different speeds and that distorts the signals.  But what can really drive fast signals batty is the protective nickel plating that is often applied between outside traces and gold top finish.  Nickel has a high uR.

I give MarkE the answer:

Ok, not bad MarkE. We can markE this as an answer because its close enough to what I was looking for.

See My point MileHigh!

So my point here is, these three people are playing tag team games with others here. Games that only an organised bunch of oil Company Trolls would have the tendency to play! These people are dangerous, lunatics!

Good at distorting truth, common-sense, direction and thoughts of others that do not stand up to these morons!

Truth will prevail and these idiots will be seen to be the morons they are!


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 10:29:44 AM
Only Clown in the Room is MarkE, with his jester and best friend MileHigh, with the friendly little kitten NoBull

Seriously, you are idiots!

Oil Company Troll Idiots!
This is really sad.  Who do you hope to impress with such childish antics?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 10:32:23 AM
Milehigh Failed miserable at a Litmus test question to see if he knew what he was talking about.

The question:
Then brilliance, he agrees with the question:

I re-defined the question:

Then a display of Ignorance and more Assumptions:

So I give some rope:

Then MarkE come in and saves MileHigh's ass:

I give MarkE the answer:

So my point here is, these three people are playing tag team games with others here. Games that only an organised bunch of oil Company Trolls would have the tendency to play! These people are dangerous, lunatics!

Good at distorting truth, common-sense, direction and thoughts of others that do not stand up to these morons!

Truth will prevail and these idiots will be seen to be the morons they are!
That's more sad behavior.  Truly, who do you think posts like that favorably impress?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:39:21 AM
This is really sad.  Who do you hope to impress with such childish antics?

You MarkE, like MileHogh, NoBull, TinselKoala display nothing but juvenile behaviour!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:40:39 AM
That's more sad behavior.  Truly, who do you think posts like that favorably impress?

Don't like truth MarkE? Cant handle the Truth?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 10:54:47 AM
Don't like truth MarkE? Cant handle the Truth?
Are you determined to convert your already sad behavior to pathetic? Who do you think your audience is?  Who do you think you can convince to take you the least bit seriously? 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
Are you determined to convert your already sad behavior to pathetic? Who do you think your audience is?  Who do you think you can convince to take you the least bit seriously?

only showing others your real intent MarkE, showing what your motivations are! why you like MileHogh are bent on shooting down others with your pathetic ramblings that often have no bearing at the topic at hand!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 11:12:00 AM
Are you determined to convert your already sad behavior to pathetic? Who do you think your audience is?  Who do you think you can convince to take you the least bit seriously?

Admit it MarkE - your equation is only an approximation! Admit it! be honest here!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 11:14:22 AM
only showing others your real intent MarkE, showing what your motivations are! why you like MileHogh are bent on shooting down others with your pathetic ramblings that often have no bearing at the topic at hand!
You can play this role you've chosen for yourself as long as you like.  It speaks for itself. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 11:25:11 AM
You can play this role you've chosen for yourself as long as you like.  It speaks for itself.

More MarkE denial!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 11:33:08 AM
More MarkE denial!

The exponential dependences of VL and VR are approximated as straight lines and it has been assumed that RL = 0
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 11:48:53 AM
The exponential dependences of VL and VR are approximated as straight lines and it has been assumed that RL = 0
MH did not assume zero resistance.  He stipulated it.  You are once again clobbering your own arguments.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 14, 2015, 11:52:20 AM
This is really sad.  Who do you hope to impress with such childish antics?
He would make a fascinating subject for a psychiatric case study. Total lack of self-criticism, emotional outbursts, perception of  disagreement as a personal attack, Ad Hominem defenses, lack of basic reasoning skills and many more intellectual and affective disorders that I do not even know how to name.
I wonder how old he is really.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 12:07:56 PM
He would make a fascinating subject for a psychiatric case study. Total lack of self-criticism, emotional outbursts, perception of  disagreement as a personal attack, Ad Hominem defenses, lack of basic reasoning skills and many more intellectual and affective disorders that I do not even know how to name.
I wonder how old he is really.

NoBull - I think you need to reword your argument! Maybe try to use words you know the meaning too?

Youre Funny!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 12:11:00 PM
MH did not assume zero resistance.  He stipulated it.  You are once again clobbering your own arguments.

Not at all MarkE! I merely pasted a line of the pdf I posted!

I wonder who is clobbering what here? You once again have assumed something. Your first problem is, just as MileHogh's is, assumption!

I proved a Point here again - Stupidity has presented itself on your part.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 12:17:03 PM

For others here with some actual intent on getting somewhere. I have found in my search a handy document with lots of references: http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/materials/StudyGuide/guide11.pdf

Its quite useful for reference!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 12:25:50 PM
I can say to all others here, my devices, like Bill Alek's, do work as I have stated. Some 4/5 years ago I did an experiment that broke through all the boundaries of Conventional Thinking! Even though Juveniles here are doing the best they can to discredit them!

I have proven this in the last 200 posts here that not all people will meet with an open mind! Some people will refute and dispute no matter what! There is no getting through to some people. As you have seen here it will be along road for us that take up the next chapter!

Do some simple experiments and you will see the path.

The information is there already! Its been done many hundreds of times through history! Its no longer a secret.

The Juveniles here will not succeed in holding back the truth! Their lunatic self importance will be over come with guilt, its called Karma. Wow is it going to hit them hard!

So learn it, use it share it!

Secure your future don't let idiots like these few minority of Juveniles here ruin it for all. The world is about to change in ways that many will never imagine! Not because of what I have given but for other reasons!

I have given all my work free, so this surely speaks volumes!

Where the truth is: www.hyiq.org
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 14, 2015, 01:43:55 PM
@TinmanIt really irritates me that this same juvenile behavior still continues today and that so many people are claiming that something is impossible or must violate the laws of physics without having any knowledge of what is actually happening. The fact remains that the scientific community called the DWFTTW engineers liers to their face and prostituted their laws to justify their own misguided opinions. They lied outright to everyone then when proven wrong they tried to sugar coat the whole scenario so they wouldn't look like the fools they obviously are, it was embarrassing for everyone involved.
So the lesson here is we should not be so quick to judge anyone until we have all the facts regardless of who we are or what we think we know. Context Matters
AC
Indeed AC
We have seen this in the other place.
It presides here-the be all and end all, the-I am right-you are wrong attitude. This was seen in the 3gages diagram I posted. We all know that the water will seek the point of the lowest energy state. But anyway, water under the bridge.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 14, 2015, 01:51:36 PM
Do we agree that it is the eddy currents induced in the copper pipe that do the heating?  Do we agree that if we accelerate a mass in a frictionless environment that neither the acceleration nor the resultant velocity heat the mass? Do we agree that the power induced in a coil is:  VINDUCED2/R?  Do we agree that where R is small as in a chunk of copper that the resulting power is much greater than where R is much larger as in a magnet?

If we agree on all these points, do you still have a question?
Im guessing a simple yes or no was just to much to ask. I was asking you the question-not because I dont know, but to see if you do.
While were here-what free space do you refer  to?, and what is your definition of ! Free space!?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 14, 2015, 03:01:45 PM
Waitress, could we please get some coffee for Joel over here to go with his humble pie?

Thank you.

Bill

The apex of hilarity...

Looks like the royal arse kisser got his perceived enemy's cornfused...he's now got joel and EMJ mixed up.

He must be getting punch drunk...rum punch probably.

Heaven forbid, that he starts trying to kiss my arse next, in his many states of inebriation.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: wattsup on January 14, 2015, 03:10:59 PM
For me, the title says it all.

Although the empirical data cannot be refuted,
the magnetic function can be derived from Myths and Misconceptions.
Myths of long ago that have persisted till today as our Misconceptions.
even though the empirical data cannot be refuted.

There is the effect that is plain to see and changes not,
the effect can be reproduced so no hiding there,
so,,,,,,,, what is left is how you can either choose or
have been trained to interpret what you see and
that can change and that can evolve, until
the same effect that you saw today
can be the same effect you see differently tomorrow.
Otherwise, how do you advance and where else can you go?

I really feel sorry for all of us for having to live our lives in fields
that where never there, or electrons, that were never there either.

I can even foresee and clearly imagine that in a few years,
it becomes confirmed that our present model was total bullshit
all with real empirical data that was derived or interpreted through
Myths and Misconceptions and that reality is actually
the inverse of what we deem it to be today.

So how sure are you of what you think reality is?

@EMjunkie

Don't overdose on too much EM. Calling names directly to any @member is not required here. The troll business you state is not required either so just stick to the topic and dispense with your direct  insults. If you cannot take the heat, then turn down your thermochat.

@all

So far all I have read reminds me of Zero Point Energy. I learned  Zero about any specific Point about Energy. Just great.

None of you offered any other alternatives to the model. Is that because you are having trouble thinking out of the box or maybe the box is a magnet deployed mouse trap. Countering Standard EE model is so easy when you have a perspective that fits all the bench effects we have ever seen. hahahahahahaha

What you guys cannot mentally and emotionally grasp is the possibility that our dear old science was right about the numbers, but wrong about the method. So far, none of the numbers confirm the method and none of the numbers will ever confirm the method. It is a catch 22 situation where just like religion, science relies on mass civil acceptance of a model and from that model the data is derived to suit the models intentions. You cannot refute that, no one can, so in the midst of obvious erroneous and free suppositions by science, science just pretends to have it right since our toys work so fine, our bombs fly so far and blow up so wide, our TVs keep us on the edge day after day, our toilets work and so do our ovens, so for the grace of all we have, we just pretend we know what we are doing. Sure, just look at the state of the World today and that should convince you that we are so smart.

Here is a question: Give me one good reason why Science had to adopt the Conservation Laws?
I mean, why go to all the trouble of presenting a Law that binds humanity to a level of abdication of  human intelligence. Why does top level science have any business telling humanity by Law, that you cannot be smarter then their Law. Is it because this brain tweak had to be institutionalized academically in order for the scar to set deep in our minds. What good ever came from this Law? And why is it only destined to science and mostly energy works.

Why not say the Law is universal. Meaning, you will never live a good enough life to get to heaven. You will never be nice enough to find true love. Why not extend it to things like, no matter how many great ingredients you add to the meal, the food will never be exquisite enough to engender an orgasm. These are all similar aspects of the same Law. Why specifically tailor this to energy. What the F were those top levels afraid of then. Maybe mans fever in those days had no bounds and the tops had to put a lid on it before things got out of hand and free energy came to light before they could reap in billions of profits. Don't forget now, inefficiency is very profitable. Mediocrity is also very profitable. Waste = Riches.   

So, can you really figure out why we are taught in schools and in universities that YOU WILL NEVER SURPASS THIS LINE OR LIMIT OF INTELLIGENCE. If anyone said that to my face he would be in the hospital by now so I surely will never accept it coming from some pencil pushing academiac that was then and still is controlled by a bunch of Cabalian perverts of high stature. F them. My mind has no bounds and man will achieve OU and along the way, man will also shed a ton of crap science.

wattsup

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 14, 2015, 03:25:50 PM
.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 14, 2015, 04:03:09 PM
I wonder what "ATOM" thinks of all these  Laws ...
he doesn't seem to need them to get his power ??

for ever and ever since , the Big BANG

as they say at the Bar

"I'LL HAVE WHAT HE"S HAVIN" {ATOM}you guys can keep you Laws.....

we haven't figured out one of the Biggest things of all ,How or Where ATOM gets his energy.
its like an ELEPHANT that roams the LAW library's and poops all over their Floors...


we follow the trail....



















Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 14, 2015, 04:10:24 PM
@wattsup
Well said, we cannot solve our problems using the same level thinking which created them and this thread has once again spiralled down into oblivion. It is incoherent and devoid of rational thought with purpose and your post was a breath of fresh air. We can do better than this I hope.
Maybe we should spell this out, if you want to debate a critic on their level you will lose because first you must lower yourself to their level and you have lost before you have even started. We must elevate our thoughts moving forwards not backwards and leave them to fight among themselves.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 06:49:55 PM
I wonder what "ATOM" thinks of all these  Laws ...
he doesn't seem to need them to get his power ??

for ever and ever since , the Big BANG

as they say at the Bar

"I'LL HAVE WHAT HE"S HAVIN" {ATOM}you guys can keep you Laws.....

we haven't figured out one of the Biggest things of all ,How or Where ATOM gets his energy.
its like an ELEPHANT that roams the LAW library's and poops all over their Floors...


we follow the trail....

There is nothing "powering" the atom, just like there is nothing "powering" the solar system.  Those are just ignorant statements that you often see on the forums in an attempt to suggest that there is a "flow of free energy" already happening right now to explain our world and the possibility that we can do the same somewhere else.

It just isn't the case at all.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 14, 2015, 07:05:24 PM



  EMJ, Tinman and other non believers,
       just take a decent pair of headphones, plug in to your device and listen to
Pink Floyd, Shine on you crazy diamond, live 1990. Now show me where they've
got it all wrong regarding electromagnetism.
  I'm far from believing we know anywhere near what's going on and there's loads
more to de discovered. I reckon a real good understanding of current thinking is
going to be needed by those who want to advance science.
                    John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 14, 2015, 07:23:37 PM
@MH
Quote
There is nothing "powering" the atom, just like there is nothing "powering" the
solar system.  Those are just ignorant statements that you often see on the
forums in an attempt to suggest that there is a "flow of free energy" already
happening right now to explain our world and the possibility that we can do the
same somewhere else.
It just isn't the case at all.
That is not entirely accurate in my opinion, we know most all the energy on Earth is due to the Sun ratiating energy outward which sustains all life on this planet. Now we know the universe would seem to be full of stars not unlike our Sun which is also a star therefore it would seem to me every star everywhere must be radiating energy outward in all directions everywhere.

Therefore I think it would be fair to say Gravity causes matter to come together which is Energy and when enough matter comes together and the conditions are right a star is born and this Energy is then radiated outward until that star dies only to be reborn somewhere else at a later date. As such it would seem pretty obvious that Energy is flowing everywhere in everything because everything is always changing and Energy is fundamentally defined by a change in something.
Unless I'm missing something?
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 09:52:16 PM
For others here with some actual intent on getting somewhere. I have found in my search a handy document with lots of references: http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/materials/StudyGuide/guide11.pdf

Its quite useful for reference!
The 8.02 course, course work, and lectures all go directly against your claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 09:54:39 PM
I can say to all others here, my devices, like Bill Alek's, do work as I have stated.
Bill Alek's devices do not work as he claims.  They do not produce excess energy.
Quote
Some 4/5 years ago I did an experiment that broke through all the boundaries of Conventional Thinking! Even though Juveniles here are doing the best they can to discredit them!

I have proven this in the last 200 posts here that not all people will meet with an open mind! Some people will refute and dispute no matter what! There is no getting through to some people.
You have demonstrated that you fit that behavior pattern.
Quote
As you have seen here it will be along road for us that take up the next chapter!

Do some simple experiments and you will see the path.

The information is there already! Its been done many hundreds of times through history! Its no longer a secret.

The Juveniles here will not succeed in holding back the truth! Their lunatic self importance will be over come with guilt, its called Karma. Wow is it going to hit them hard!

So learn it, use it share it!

Secure your future don't let idiots like these few minority of Juveniles here ruin it for all. The world is about to change in ways that many will never imagine! Not because of what I have given but for other reasons!

I have given all my work free, so this surely speaks volumes!

Where the truth is: www.hyiq.org
Your own cited references refute your claims.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 09:59:00 PM
Im guessing a simple yes or no was just to much to ask. I was asking you the question-not because I dont know, but to see if you do.
While were here-what free space do you refer  to?, and what is your definition of ! Free space!?
I presented my response in an effort to find common ground. 

Free space is an open void.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 10:02:08 PM
@wattsup
Well said, we cannot solve our problems using the same level thinking which created them and this thread has once again spiralled down into oblivion. It is incoherent and devoid of rational thought with purpose and your post was a breath of fresh air. We can do better than this I hope.
Maybe we should spell this out, if you want to debate a critic on their level you will lose because first you must lower yourself to their level and you have lost before you have even started. We must elevate our thoughts moving forwards not backwards and leave them to fight among themselves.

AC
Appealing to magical beliefs is unlikely to solve any real problems.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:02:20 PM
in an attempt to suggest that there is a "flow of free energy"...

@ALL - I am sure most here can already see the facts for what they are.

Natural Energy Flows in Nature exist everywhere!

We as a species already use some of them!

Hydro Electric power, we don't pay for the energy in the form of applied force to turn the Generator Shaft! We pay for the Installation and Maintenance of the System! Not the Force that drives it!

A cubic metre of water has a mass of 999.972 kilograms, with a Drop of 1.0 meter, this Cubic Meter of water has a velocity of 49.6293 Meters / second - 999.972 kilograms @ 49.6293 Meters / second this is a huge force, 49627.91 Newton's - that You don't have to pay for!

Gravity Supply's this Force and Nature is filling the Reservoir!

Wind power, we don't pay for the Wind to drive the Wind Turbine!

Most all Natural Energy Flows exist because of the Inverse Square Law at some point, wind may be the exception here. I am sure if one were to trace back far enough that the Inverse Square Law will still be the cause.

Free Energy Exists Everywhere - Its already incorporated in our Science.

Thinking for the future, to be creative and to allow Doors to Open, means one can not be close minded! Open your Mind to possibilities! Be creative! Be Human!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:23:38 PM
@ALL - I am sure most here can already see the facts for what they are.

Natural Energy Flows in Nature exist everywhere!

We as a species already use some of them!

Hydro Electric power, we don't pay for the energy in the form of applied force to turn the Generator Shaft! We pay for the Installation and Maintenance of the System! Not the Force that drives it!

A cubic metre of water has a mass of 999.972 kilograms, with a Drop of 1.0 meter, this Cubic Meter of water has a velocity of 49.6293 Meters / second - 999.972 kilograms @ 49.6293 Meters / second this is a huge force, 49627.91 Newton's - that You don't have to pay for!

Gravity Supply's this Force and Nature is filling the Reservoir!

Wind power, we don't pay for the Wind to drive the Wind Turbine!

Most all Natural Energy Flows exist because of the Inverse Square Law at some point, wind may be the exception here. I am sure if one were to trace back far enough that the Inverse Square Law will still be the cause.

Free Energy Exists Everywhere - Its already incorporated in our Science.

Thinking for the future, to be creative and to allow Doors to Open, means one can not be close minded! Open your Mind to possibilities! Be creative! Be Human!

Kind Regards

  Chris

@ALL

Because of the scale of the required installations for Hydro Power for example, this becomes impractical to build on a scale for the average person!

A solution to this simply means that we have one or two things that need to be looked at to reduce the required Scale:

1: Reduce the Required Force to generate the same Energy.
2: Increase the output Energy for the required Force Applied.

Each of the above as one can see are inter linked!

There are solutions out there!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 10:27:54 PM
AC:

I am not talking about the radiated energy from the sun.

Chris:

I think one thing that can be taken from yesterday's discussion is self-deception on your part.  You clearly do not have a grasp on what we were talking about.  Then you take it one step beyond that and try to pitch yourself as a teacher and communicator.  If you like this stuff, then just be honest with yourself and start a program of study and get yourself up the learning curve.  Being deluded and in denial is just to your own self-detriment.

It's like going to a mechanic and you have a car that let's say was manufactured in Singapore.  You say to the mechanic, "Because of where the car was manufactured, I'm not sure if the nuts are metric or English."  The mechanic looks back at you with a confused look on his face and says "What?"

It's like hiring a painter for your house and you say to the painter, "I am not sure if I should use oil-based paint for the rec room or latex-based paint."  The painter looks back at you with a confused look on his face and says "What?"

Would you hire the mechanic or the painter?  The obvious answer is no.

You are just like the hypothetical mechanic or painter.  My assumption is that you have no education or any serious self-education in this subject matter.  You are just "winging it" as you go along.  If you are interested in this stuff surely you can do better than that.

Also, it's time to stop the immature brat behaviour.  It's just silly.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:31:14 PM
Bill Alek's devices do not work as he claims.  They do not produce excess energy.[quoite]Some 4/5 years ago I did an experiment that broke through all the boundaries of Conventional Thinking! Even though Juveniles here are doing the best they can to discredit them!

I have proven this in the last 200 posts here that not all people will meet with an open mind! Some people will refute and dispute no matter what! There is no getting through to some people. You have demonstrated that you fit that behavior pattern.Your own cited references refute your claims.

MarkE - I have already noted your Opinions.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 14, 2015, 10:31:46 PM
Quote
A cubic metre of water has a mass of 999.972 kilograms, with a Drop of 1.0 meter, this Cubic Meter of water has a velocity of 49.6293 Meters / second - 999.972 kilograms @ 49.6293 Meters / second this is a huge force, 49627.91 Newton's - that You don't have to pay for!

See, even here, this is a retarded nonsensical statement.  Please go to school one way or the other.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:36:39 PM
@ALL

Because of the scale of the required installations for Hydro Power for example, this becomes impractical to build on a scale for the average person!

A solution to this simply means that we have one or two things that need to be looked at to reduce the required Scale:

1: Reduce the Required Force to generate the same Energy.
2: Increase the output Energy for the required Force Applied.

Each of the above as one can see are inter linked!

There are solutions out there!

Kind Regards

  Chris

@ALL - I would like to quote from a very smart person:

"Electricity is not made by the generator, it is merely pumped."

If anyone here can explain this statement and why it is so, I will be very impressed!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 14, 2015, 10:45:59 PM



 There's usually a clue in the username, and EM. you're proving it. Yes, pure junk as in
your reply 1133, we've been through this all before! I suggest that you collaborate
with a certain Wayne Travis, you'll find him at " Hydro Energy Revolution " that is if he's
still floating!
               John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 14, 2015, 10:56:46 PM
@MH
Quote
I am not talking about the radiated energy from the sun.
Are you sure?, fundamentally all Energy relates to field interactions and you do not know what a field is fundamentally nor why it is so how would you know what your talking about?. I mean all stars and moreso super nova radiate ridiculous amounts of EM energy and high energy particles throughout all space in the known universe and if one needed a primary cause relating to the Primary Fields one would think it might have something to do with this fact don't you think. As well we know all matter absorbs and radiates energy, it is in continuous motion near light speed, oscillating and spinning and yet somehow you seem to have this strange belief that we have an energy crisis or that the universe is somehow devoid or lacking in energy. It reminds me of a man in a boat in the middle of the great lakes dying of thirst.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 10:59:37 PM


 There's usually a clue in the username, and EM. you're proving it. Yes, pure junk as in
your reply 1133, we've been through this all before! I suggest that you collaborate
with a certain Wayne Travis, you'll find him at " Hydro Energy Revolution " that is if he's
still floating!
               John.

John - Please try to answer the question.

It is much more intuitive than you think!

@ALL - I would like to quote from a very smart person:

"Electricity is not made by the generator, it is merely pumped."

If anyone here can explain this statement and why it is so, I will be very impressed!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 11:11:14 PM
@MHAre you sure?, fundamentally all Energy relates to field interactions and you do not know what a field is fundamentally nor why it is so how would you know what your talking about?. I mean all stars and moreso super nova radiate ridiculous amounts of EM energy and high energy particles throughout all space in the known universe and if one needed a primary cause relating to the Primary Fields one would think it might have something to do with this fact don't you think. As well we know all matter absorbs and radiates energy, it is in continuous motion near light speed, oscillating and spinning and yet somehow you seem to have this strange belief that we have an energy crisis or that the universe is somehow devoid or lacking in energy. It reminds me of a man in a boat in the middle of the great lakes dying of thirst.
AC

Exactly! - Neutrino detectors have measured Neutrinos coming from the Sun that penetrate 2.5 km below the Earth's Surface! Some experiments have been more!

Neutrinos routinely pass right through the Earth!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 14, 2015, 11:46:36 PM


 There's usually a clue in the username, and EM. you're proving it. Yes, pure junk as in
your reply 1133, we've been through this all before! I suggest that you collaborate
with a certain Wayne Travis, you'll find him at " Hydro Energy Revolution " that is if he's
still floating!
               John.
I have heard that "Honest" Wayne Travis is trying to float half a million dollars of new investment from mom and pop investors, supposedly to build a new proof of concept.  I have also heard that "Honest" Wayne Travis has been telling prospective investors bald faced lies that his existing proof of concept machines do prove his BS claims of free energy from buoyancy.  I have also heard that despite his former protests, he actively markets the idea that there is a "Travis Effect" and it can be seen in Tom Granberg's YT videos.  If what I have heard is true, then if I were "Honest" Wayne Travis I would be very concerned how angry the bilked investors might get.  Angry people can do stupid things.  I don't think anyone wants to end-up buoyant face down.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 14, 2015, 11:54:00 PM



   Trouble is I'm just an OUJunkie, it's no good for me but I can't break the habit!
Just as bad as fags I suppose. It all started many years ago with Perendev.
Then I stumbled on this Bedini generator, so I hurried to the shops and bought
all this stuff- unfortunately it come to nothing.
   Go on hoist your cu. mtr. of water 35 metres in the air and let it go at 100 ltrs.
a second and sit back and enjoy your 10 seconds of free energy.
               John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 11:56:02 PM
I have heard that "Honest" Wayne Travis is trying to float half a million dollars of new investment from mom and pop investors, supposedly to build a new proof of concept.  I have also heard that "Honest" Wayne Travis has been telling prospective investors bald faced lies that his existing proof of concept machines do prove his BS claims of free energy from buoyancy.  I have also heard that despite his former protests, he actively markets the idea that there is a "Travis Effect" and it can be seen in Tom Granberg's YT videos.  If what I have heard is true, then if I were "Honest" Wayne Travis I would be very concerned how angry the bilked investors might get.  Angry people can do stupid things.  I don't think anyone wants to end-up buoyant face down.

This is why the Real Deal's, Ask for No Money, Have No Investors, and ask for nothing in return!

This surely by now must be just common-sense! Still, for many, it is not.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 14, 2015, 11:59:52 PM
Go on hoist your cu. mtr. of water 35 metres in the air and let it go at 100 ltrs. a second and sit back and enjoy your 10 seconds of free energy.
John.

John, I think you have missed the Case and Point!

You poke fun at something that you are not aware of the implications.

Does the Hydro Electric Utility "hoist your cu. mtr. of water 35 metres in the air and let it go at 100 ltrs. a second and sit back and enjoy your 10 seconds of free energy."?

The answer is No!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 15, 2015, 12:00:31 AM
Bill Alek's devices do not work as he claims.  They do not produce excess energy.

Next, I spose he will be claiming Bill Alek's hair isn't really his own...oy vey.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 12:08:39 AM
Next, I spose he will be claiming Bill Alek's hair isn't really his own...oy vey.

Regards...

Hey Cap-Z-ro,

I have had communications with Bill in the past. He is a really nice guy!

His Hair may or may not be his own, but this is how Bill likes it.

Bill has given nearly every secret to his device, what he has not given, I have in my work!

There is a little more to it, but existing Information combined with Experimental Intuitiveness will be more than enough to start.

There are many other devices in history that use the same concepts as My Work and what Bill has shown!

See: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf

I cover just some of the devices in there.

To dismiss My Work, and or Bill's work will prove to be very detrimental to the human species. We as a race may not get another chance at it!

Kind Regards

  Chris
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 15, 2015, 12:30:30 AM
Public Service Announcement:

The equations of linear motion.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 12:44:26 AM
@All

For a description of how the coils work together, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA

Think Imbalance!

Think, why do these work!

Know that the fact is, when the Transformer is loaded, there is a NET ZERO Magnetic Field. This means the Ampere Turns on the primary are equal but opposite to the Ampere Turns on the secondary, or close to it. Where the Vector of each Magnetic Field sum’s to ZERO!!!

Ask yourself - WHY?

This is so simple, once you see the path!

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
  To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 12:45:55 AM
@ALL - I would like to quote from a very smart person:

"Electricity is not made by the generator, it is merely pumped."

If anyone here can explain this statement and why it is so, I will be very impressed!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 12:59:23 AM
@ALL - Another brilliant quote from the same brilliant mind:

"Excitations may be caused in several ways, among which is the collision of the atom with rapidly moving positive or negative particles, or as in the breaking of lines of force

in the modern electromagnetic generator, which is nothing more than an electric pump, for the electric generator does not create the electrical energy any more than the water

pump creates water."

and also

"The generators that now furnish our electric power do not create or originate any power or electricity; they merely direct "pump" the existing energy or electricity."

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 01:00:45 AM
@ALL

Why is it that Jim Murrays Machines Speed Up under Load? More Load the More Speed!

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 01:02:18 AM
@ALL

What's the first thing you think of when you hear the term "Bucking Coil"?

Repel, Reject.... Think what it is?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2015, 01:10:58 AM
Hey Cap-Z-ro,

I have had communications with Bill in the past. He is a really nice guy!

His Hair may or may not be his own, but this is how Bill likes it.

Bill has given nearly every secret to his device, what he has not given, I have in my work!

There is a little more to it, but existing Information combined with Experimental Intuitiveness will be more than enough to start.

There are many other devices in history that use the same concepts as My Work and what Bill has shown!

See: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf

I cover just some of the devices in there.

To dismiss My Work, and or Bill's work will prove to be very detrimental to the human species. We as a race may not get another chance at it!

Kind Regards

  Chris
Bill Alek's  device does not work as he claims.  It is nothing more than a transformer with lots of leakage inductance.  Bad measurements lead out dumb conclusions.  If Bill Alek wants to reach a conclusion he need only rent or buy a pair of power analyzers.  He can then configure as he does in his demonstrations where he thinks that the load drives the source and reconcile that with the fact that he hasn't been able to make any device generate net surplus power.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 01:23:08 AM
@ALL

What's the first thing you think of when you hear the term "Bucking Coil"?

Repel, Reject.... Think what it is?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

@ALL

The absolute key to making this work is simple!

1: Current must be flowing in the Partnered Output Coils!
2: The Magnetic Field Component Must Cancel, but the Electric Field must Add! e/2 changes to e!

Why does the Magnetic Field Component Cancel? Why is this important?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 01:23:48 AM
Bill Alek's  device does not work as he claims.  It is nothing more than a transformer with lots of leakage inductance.  Bad measurements lead out dumb conclusions.  If Bill Alek wants to reach a conclusion he need only rent or buy a pair of power analyzers.  He can then configure as he does in his demonstrations where he thinks that the load drives the source and reconcile that with the fact that he hasn't been able to make any device generate net surplus power.

MarkE - I have noted your Opinion!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 01:27:30 AM
@ALL

Think Magnetic Oscillator!

Like the Hydraulic Ram Pump is a Gravitic Oscillator! 300+ years of history behind this device!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 01:28:59 AM
@ALL - Again I ask:

"Electricity is not made by the generator, it is merely captured or pumped."

Why? How? Ask Questions!!!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 01:51:09 AM
@ALL - Another quote from another brilliant mind:

"This resulted in a current gain in the secondary, relative to the primary. Lenz's law was bypassed, and free-energy resulted. An alternate explanation for the current gain in the UDT is to consider each secondary winding as acting as the primary winding for the other secondary winding when an output current is drawn because the two secondary windings generate geometrically opposing fields."

URL: http://www.hyiq.org/Research/Details?Name=A%20Free-Energy%20Device

The above document is perhaps the best read in all of the Energy Field!

Again: "we can see that when the Transformer is loaded, there is a NET ZERO Magnetic Field. This means the Ampere Turns on the primary are equal but opposite to the Ampere Turns on the secondary, or close to it. Where the Vector of each Magnetic Field sum’s to ZERO!!!"

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 15, 2015, 02:06:30 AM
Quote
"The generators that now furnish our electric power do not create or originate any power or electricity; they merely direct "pump" the existing energy or electricity."

They convert brute force mechanical power into brute force electrical power.  They are simply transformers.  If you take the water analogy, the electric field generated in the output coil could be viewed as a pressure pump.  As you travel along the length of the coil you are going up in potential (pressure) due to the 'pushing' electric field inside the coil.  In other words, as you walk along the electric field inside the wire you go up in potential.

For the bucking coils clip, someone could do that test without too much difficulty.  You could measure the AC power going though the primary and secondary quite easily.  A signal generator and an audio amp and a few multimeters and a big fat 8-ohm resistor and a variable load resistor and some odds and ends and you would be able to see what was going on.  The results will be as expected.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 02:21:53 AM
@ALL

No answers?

Please, I ask you Please start thinking about this! It all makes sense once the right thinking is obtained! My Work, and Bill's, uses exactly the same principals as Paul Raymond Jensen!

Stan Meyer also used the same principals in his VIC Circuit!

Please read and study:

URL 1: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf
URL 2: http://www.hyiq.org/Research/Details?Name=A%20Free-Energy%20Device

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 15, 2015, 02:41:56 AM
How about you post some timing diagrams for your transformer circuit?  Show us where the alleged over unity manifests itself.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 02:50:44 AM
@ALL

Between 4/5 years ago I did a set of experiments that led to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM

I published the above video nearly 4 Years ago now.

Approximately 2 years ago, I did this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQgch4L5XY

I published the above video nearly 3 Months ago now.

I have already given all my work freely - Its now up to You!

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 15, 2015, 02:51:30 AM
Hi Chris,

Very interesting material...could you post some timing diagrams for your transformer circuit...showing where the over unity manifests itself ?


That is how I would respond to Chris...that is, unless I was just here to antagonize and demean people for their efforts.

Regards...


 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 02:58:52 AM
Hi Chris,

Very interesting material...could you post some timing diagrams for your transformer circuit...showing where the over unity manifests itself ?


That is how I would respond to Chris...that is, unless I was just here to antagonize and demean people for their efforts.

Regards...

Hi Cap-Z-ro,

URL: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf

There is still a lot I do not know. I explain a lot in this document. No Timing Diagrams, but I give the reasons why in there.

I have learnt a lot, but I still have some ways to go! I don't have all the answers yet. Once an understanding is obtained, these devices self-run which is the proof of Excess Energy!

Some more information can be obtained here: http://www.hyiq.org/Updates/Update?Name=Update%2026-08-11 - In particular in the Transcribed Lab Notes.

Speculation: I believe, as Paul Raymond Jensen did, excess energy comes simply from Excess or Excited Charge Carrier Separation. It Pumps the Charge Carriers. Like I was trying to point out in the Quote's from T Henry Moray! One could say, this device avoids Lenz's Law.

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 15, 2015, 06:32:35 AM
I read the first few pages of the pdf and skimmed through the rest.  I noticed the Bloch wall gets a lot of discussion, hence the big debate.

From the first pages:

Quote
I encourage experiments with the Bloch Wall. I have a small iron lamination with a hole in one end
and I have cut it in half and made it into an arrow shape on the end, it’s tied to a small piece of wire
and I wave the Iron Lamination over the Bloch Wall. The Lamination will Jump over the Bloch Wall
with extreme reluctance. It’s as if there is an invisible wall of force that the Iron Lamination can only
reluctantly pass.

The reason your iron lamination jumps over what you think is the Bloch wall is because on either side there is much stronger magnetic attraction.  So there is no jumping, it's essentially the opposite of what you are suggesting.  I remember seeing it in your video clip.

Quote
Here in lies a very serious problem! It’s not bought up anywhere as far as I can tell. This definition
does NOT explain how Mechanical Rotational Energy is converted into Electrical Energy on the
Output Terminals. Energy in the form of Mechanical Rotation simply is not the actual causality of the
Energy on the Output Terminals!

Yes it is.

Quote
Put simply, a combination of the Conductors and the Electromagnetic Fields in “Electric Generators”
separate Charge Carriers, positive one way, and Negative the other way, making one Terminal
become Positively Charged and the other Negatively Charged. This will change depending on the
polarity of the Induction Cycle inside the “Electric Generator”. This is simply a Sine Wave output.

This idea of one terminal of a coil becoming negatively charged and the other positively charged is completely wrong and I would even go so far as to call that a totally naive view.  There is no build up of charge on the terminals under normal operation driving a load.  There is simply current flow.  There is an electric field inside the wires creating potential but that is not to be confused with any charge differential.

Quote
Ideally, these devices work with a Step Up configuration. 1:3 is a common Ratio. That’s one turn on
the input to 3 turns on the output. Current, as you may think, is not stepped down as a result of the
Voltage being stepped up.

Current is stepped down as a result of voltage being stepped up.  Of course anybody familiar with transformers knows that you are making an incorrect claim here.  Suspension of disbelief is not an option.

My take from this is that you, Chris, would have to do convincing and properly executed bench experiments because the pdf doc is not convincing or credible at all.  So there is no point to debate the doc as far as I am personally concerned.

There is a kind of Catch 22 though.  I am not convinced that you have the knowledge and skill set to do the experiments properly.  If you could find someone to work with that was real, that truly knew their stuff, that would be a far preferable option.

In a nutshell and to quote Mark Dansie, show me the data.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 15, 2015, 06:34:08 AM
Can some one please post the link for the magnet myths and misconceptions thread, as I keep getting diverted here to the markeemjunkiemilehighshitfest thread.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 15, 2015, 06:48:43 AM
That wasn't a shit fest yesterday, it was a vigorous debate and some people might find it important.  You can't bluff your way through electronics or make up your own rules for electronics.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2015, 06:51:20 AM
Can some one please post the link for the magnet myths and misconceptions thread, as I keep getting diverted here to the markeemjunkiemilehighshitfest thread.
What would you like to discuss? 

Would you like to discuss the curious idea that a 1:3 step up transformer can step up the voltage, and the current does not step down 3:1?

PIN = VIN*IIN
POUT = VOUT*IOUT

So if VOUT = 3*VIN and IOUT>IIN/3 the output power is greater than the input.  If that sustains, then we get free (or at least apparently free) energy.


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 15, 2015, 07:23:07 AM
What would you like to discuss? 

Would you like to discuss the curious idea that a 1:3 step up transformer can step up the voltage, and the current does not step down 3:1?

PIN = VIN*IIN
POUT = VOUT*IOUT

So if VOUT = 3*VIN and IOUT>IIN/3 the output power is greater than the input.  If that sustains, then we get free (or at least apparently free) energy.
How about the thread topic, or have we moved onto transformers?
You have been that busy with EMJ, and trying to correct everything he states, you missed 3questions I posted related to the thread title-about 9 pages back.

But anyway, do carry on.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 15, 2015, 07:42:39 AM
*wipes screen*

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2015, 08:04:57 AM
How about the thread topic, or have we moved onto transformers?
You have been that busy with EMJ, and trying to correct everything he states, you missed 3questions I posted related to the thread title-about 9 pages back.

But anyway, do carry on.
Tinman if you have a questions you didn't get answers to then you can always repost them.  The Bloch wall claim has been destroyed as has the field looping back into the middle of the magnet. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 15, 2015, 11:32:14 AM



  I'm always looking, I have a need to try and understand what others seem able to
comprehend. Anyways at the moment I see references to counterspace but haven't
a clue what they're on about. This morning I did find this which mentions projective
geometry. nct.anth.org.uk/counter  I thought it might be interesting for some of you
I'll have a go at it tonight,
                   John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 15, 2015, 01:27:52 PM
The reason your iron lamination jumps over what you think is the Bloch wall is because on either side there is much stronger magnetic attraction. 
And this attraction force is proportional to the gradient of the magnetic flux density (B) so any map of the attraction force will be a map of this gradient ...not anything else.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 15, 2015, 04:58:07 PM
@Mark
Quote
The Bloch wall claim has been destroyed as has the field
looping back into the middle of the magnet.
*facepalm*
I think I just threw up in my brain....thanks
 
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2015, 05:05:41 PM
@Mark*facepalm*
I think I just threw up in my brain....thanks
 
AC
I'm sorry are you thinking that there is some evidence that supports rather than refutes the idea that the field turns towards the dipole at its center?  What would that evidence be?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 15, 2015, 09:34:21 PM
In Chris' "Bucking Coils" pdf document he makes a claim of COP 1.7 for for one of his transformer setups.  Please see the attached screen cap.

So Chris, can you back your claim up?  My feeling is that with your limited knowledge, experience, and skills that you just unwittingly deceived yourself.  If you shared your data the problem might be found.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 15, 2015, 09:59:58 PM
@ALL

Any Answers Yet? How and Why is Energy Pumped in Generators? Where does the Energy Really come from in the Generator?

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

"Brute Force" is just to over come Lenz's Law and is NOT the reason why Energy is present on the Output Terminals. Lenz's Law is a Result of the Energy being present on the Output Terminals!

In my work, Lenz's law does not affect the Prime Mover! Lenz's Law does not Apply! At the Same time, it is present, working else where!

See URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQgch4L5XY

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 15, 2015, 10:13:28 PM
@MileHigh,

Here's a transformer with a 377% OU COP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYiT4zK9Kc
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 15, 2015, 10:27:19 PM
@Milehigh,

Here's another video on "Opposite Coils":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7QiI8p1gi4
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 12:02:50 AM
@ALL

Any Answers Yet? How and Why is Energy Pumped in Generators? Where does the Energy Really come from in the Generator?

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

"Brute Force" is just to over come Lenz's Law and is NOT the reason why Energy is present on the Output Terminals. Lenz's Law is a Result of the Energy being present on the Output Terminals!

In my work, Lenz's law does not affect the Prime Mover! Lenz's Law does not Apply! At the Same time, it is present, working else where!

See URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQgch4L5XY

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

@ALL

Experiment:

Take a conventional Automotive Alternator.
Install on a Rig along with an electric Motor.
Drive with Electric Motor

Only input is mechanical in the form of Rotation to the Alternator Shaft!

Question: Is it possible to get an Output with No Extra Input to the Alternator?
Answer: Yes

Result: By connecting the Field Coil on the Alternator in such a way, either in a short circuit, or connected in series with the output Coils, enough Feed Back is produced to get an Electrical Output on the Output Terminals.

Not Free Energy, but this shows that Feed Back Techniques can excite the Coils and Magnetic Fields can Manifest in the Device with no further Input! The Magnetic Field can be made to Support Itself!

ONLY because of Lenz Law, Resistive Mechanical Force is applied on the Shaft in Opposition to the applied Input from the Electric Motor!

Lenz's Law is Only a Result of the Electrical Output, NOT the Cause!!!

What does it mean if Lenz's Law could be Eliminated or Reduced?

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 12:54:37 AM
@ALL

Am I helping here?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 16, 2015, 01:05:37 AM
@ALL

Am I helping here?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

Everyone who shares their honest opinions is helping the cause Chris...you just never know how much impact a person's words have on people until later on...and sometimes never.

I may not always respond, but I read everything that resonates with me.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 01:16:44 AM
Everyone who shares their honest opinions is helping the cause Chris...you just never know how much impact a person's words have on people until later on...and sometimes never.

I may not always respond, but I read everything that resonates with me.

Regards...

Thanks Cap-Z-ro

I meant to get to an answer. As to why and how Energy is Pumped in a Generator. But, I appreciate your words! Thanks!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 01:19:15 AM
In Chris' "Bucking Coils" pdf document he makes a claim of COP 1.7 for for one of his transformer setups.  Please see the attached screen cap.

So Chris, can you back your claim up?  My feeling is that with your limited knowledge, experience, and skills that you just unwittingly deceived yourself.  If you shared your data the problem might be found.
One can claim whatever they like.  Without supporting reliable data it's just a claim.  Using big antenna loops as seen in that picture, Steven Jones claimed 8X overunity that was in reality non-existent.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 01:23:56 AM
@MileHigh,

Here's a transformer with a 377% OU COP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYiT4zK9Kc
And yet he can't self-loop.  Now why do you think that is?  Does he need a TK Transverter?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 16, 2015, 01:25:18 AM
One can claim whatever they like.  Without supporting reliable data it's just a claim. 


Yeah...I know some people who claim mercury laden vaccines are safe and effective without a shred of evidence to back that up.

Aaaayup.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 01:41:08 AM

Yeah...I know some people who claim mercury laden vaccines are safe and effective without a shred of evidence to back that up.

Aaaayup.

Regards...


Hahahaha - Yes Cap-Z-ro!!!


Sometimes in ones life one must use Common-Sense to come to a conclusion! No matter what evidence is provided, it will be debated and refuted!

Sometimes with no evidence to the contrary!

It really is just about Common-Sense!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 02:18:58 AM
@ALL

Experiment:

Take a conventional Automotive Alternator.
Install on a Rig along with an electric Motor.
Drive with Electric Motor

Only input is mechanical in the form of Rotation to the Alternator Shaft!

Question: Is it possible to get an Output with No Extra Input to the Alternator?
Answer: Yes

Result: By connecting the Field Coil on the Alternator in such a way, either in a short circuit, or connected in series with the output Coils, enough Feed Back is produced to get an Electrical Output on the Output Terminals.

Not Free Energy, but this shows that Feed Back Techniques can excite the Coils and Magnetic Fields can Manifest in the Device with no further Input! The Magnetic Field can be made to Support Itself!

ONLY because of Lenz Law, Resistive Mechanical Force is applied on the Shaft in Opposition to the applied Input from the Electric Motor!

Lenz's Law is Only a Result of the Electrical Output, NOT the Cause!!!

What does it mean if Lenz's Law could be Eliminated or Reduced?

Please start asking questions, in your mind, Why?

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

@ALL

Ok, I am going to throw it out there!

How: Charge is Separated!

Charge is Separated, Negative to one Terminal, Positive to the other Terminal.

Why:

In a Generator, the Conductors experience a Force, via the Magnetic Field, and each Charge is pushed to its corresponding Terminal. Charge Separation!


References:
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcGWO_x8tpM and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9m86joRSMg
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaWG_6WCkTA
URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1BXNFlIaHM


The same is true in Battery's, Chemical Force Separates Charge!

The same is true in Solar Cells, Chemical Force, induced by the Sun's Rays, Separates Charge!

Lenz's Law is ONLY apparent when Current is drawn from the resulting Charge Separation, E.G; Energy.

So Energy is not Generated at all! It was already there! Not Separated! At rest! Equilibrium!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 16, 2015, 02:35:56 AM
You can have your monologue Chris but the problem is that you are mostly talking pseudoscience crap.  You went through a qualification process just the other day and it was a total fail on your part and as a result you had a freak-out.  You do not truly understand magnetism or electronics.  My assumption is that you have had no formal education in these subjects and you are "pseudo self-educated."  That can be a dangerous thing.

This thread is about dispelling the myths and misconceptions about magnets, not promoting them.  There are no Bloch walls in a magnet and if you promote that concept then people should be wary about every single thing you say.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 03:20:28 AM
@ALL

As Albert Einstein said: E = MC^2

Induction in Transformers are defined by the Equation: dPhi/dt - This is the Flux Linking principal.

So to define, the Time Rate of Change (t) of the Flux (Phi) Induces an emf in the Secondary Coil. This IS Charge Separation!

The Primary Coils magnetic Field may Point in the Z Direction a t=1. At t=1 the Secondary Coils Magnetic Field Opposes the Primary Coils Magnetic Field. (Note - Secondary only has a Magnetic Field if Current is drawn)

So here we can see that there is two Magnetic Field's, Primary and Secondary. Both Vectors Sums to Zero.

Again Not Over Unity because of Lenz's Law. Input Current must In-Crease to support the Magnetic Field. This is to Push the Transformer through the BH Curve!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 16, 2015, 03:20:29 AM
And yet he can't self-loop.  Now why do you think that is?  Does he need a TK Transverter?

@MarkE,

Take a look at Thane's latest bi-toroid video. He clearly demonstrates the "Infinite Efficiency" of his transformer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H5BerC9Go
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 16, 2015, 03:41:02 AM
Quote
So to define, the Time Rate of Change (t) of the Flux (Phi) Induces an emf in the Secondary Coil. This IS Charge Separation!

Charge separation my ass.

You want to learn about real electronics and real magnetics?

Here is a good clip:  "The Basic Physics of the Generator."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwM32ArGxm4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwM32ArGxm4)

This guy's clips are amazing and here is the general link:

https://www.youtube.com/user/lasseviren1/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/lasseviren1/videos)

One thing that you need to properly follow his clips are a mastery of basic Calculus 101.  If you get that under your belt then you will be able to follow his clips.  You could probably even learn the basic calculus by watching a bunch of YouTube videos.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 03:49:47 AM
@ALL

As Albert Einstein said: E = MC^2

Induction in Transformers are defined by the Equation: dPhi/dt - This is the Flux Linking principal.

So to define, the Time Rate of Change (t) of the Flux (Phi) Induces an emf in the Secondary Coil. This IS Charge Separation!

The Primary Coils magnetic Field may Point in the Z Direction a t=1. At t=1 the Secondary Coils Magnetic Field Opposes the Primary Coils Magnetic Field. (Note - Secondary only has a Magnetic Field if Current is drawn)

So here we can see that there is two Magnetic Field's, Primary and Secondary. Both Vectors Sums to Zero.

Again Not Over Unity because of Lenz's Law. Input Current must In-Crease to support the Magnetic Field. This is to Push the Transformer through the BH Curve!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

@ALL

So to re-iterate - In Conventional Devices, Lenz's Law is the reason we always have to put more energy in, to get energy out. Most everyone knows this already!

If we can invoke Charge Separation, draw Current from this Separation, and avoid, or reduce Invoking Lenz's Law, E.G; the Magnetic Field associated with the Moving Charge Carriers, but at the same time not restrict or even in-crease the Charge Separation by doing so, then we have a winning combination!

I have already shown how to do this in my Videos and pdf's on my website.

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 16, 2015, 04:07:11 AM
And yet he can't self-loop.  Now why do you think that is?  Does he need a TK Transverter?

What the hell are you talking about here when you say he can't self loop? You don't understand the nature of reactive power! The reactive power is self looping itself when it returns the input to source during the half phase of the sine wave. The real power consumed by the primary is zero. The COP is one over infinity. You need to spend more time educating yourself. You and MileHigh are both bald ass morans!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 04:09:56 AM
@ALL

Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9m86joRSMg

@7:00

I would like to show the Force on a Conductor as an example:


Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 16, 2015, 04:11:17 AM
You and MileHigh both are bald ass morans!


I wood say that is due to abrasion...the forum's designated arse kisser wood have to consulted on that.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 04:17:22 AM
What the hell are you talking about here when you say he can't self loop? You don't understand the nature of reactive power! The reactive power is self looping itself when it returns the input to source during the half phase of the sine wave. The real power consumed by the primary is zero. The COP is one over infinity. You need to spend more time educating yourself. You and MileHigh are both bald ass morans!
If you believe that, reproduce his set-up and disconnect from the input power source.  Guess what will happen?  The machine will quickly stop.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 16, 2015, 04:18:33 AM
And this attraction force is proportional to the gradient of the magnetic flux density (B) so any map of the attraction force will be a map of this gradient ...not anything else.
Yes, and that map will be of a figure 8/peanut shape. But the steel laminate dose not jump over the center of the dipole because of an even pull force in each direction, it seems to jump because at the center of the dipole there is an even amount of negatively and positively charged particles, and the net reaction on the steel laminate is 0.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 04:26:48 AM
@ALL

Charge Separation in Conductors: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/induced-charge-separation.556276/

Charge Separation in Solar Cells: http://inside.mines.edu/~zhiwu/research/my_papers/JMaterChem_20_1053.pdf

For the interested, Google has currently Indexed about 6,820,000 results for Charge Separation! Not all relevant to the current topic.

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 04:28:44 AM
@MarkE,

Take a look at Thane's latest bi-toroid video. He clearly demonstrates the "Infinite Efficiency" of his transformer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2H5BerC9Go
This is beyond stupid.  All he has done is build a transformer with a ton of leakage inductance.  Given a circuit consisting of Z1 in series with Z2 where |Z1| >> |Z2|, one can change |Z2| all day long getting big percentage changes in the power transferred to / from Z2 without changing the power through Z1 or drawn from the supply significantly.  If I want to fool my instruments all I have to do is make the ratio: Z1/Z2 greater than the resolution of my instruments.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 05:03:51 AM
This is beyond stupid.  All he has done is build a transformer with a ton of leakage inductance.  Given a circuit consisting of Z1 in series with Z2 where |Z1| >> |Z2|, one can change |Z2| all day long getting big percentage changes in the power transferred to / from Z2 without changing the power through Z1 or drawn from the supply significantly.  If I want to fool my instruments all I have to do is make the ratio: Z1/Z2 greater than the resolution of my instruments.

@ALL

Leakage Inductance or I like to use the term "Loose Coupling" is a Requirement!

It does NOT always mean Loss! A Generator has leakage inductance but it still Separates Charge!

"Leakage inductance derives from the electrical property of an imperfectly-coupled transformer whereby each winding behaves as a self-inductance constant in series with the winding's respective ohmic resistance constant, these four winding constants also interacting with the transformer's mutual inductance constant. The winding self-inductance constant and associated leakage inductance is due to leakage flux not linking with all turns of each imperfectly-coupled winding.

The leakage flux alternately stores and discharges magnetic energy with each electrical cycle acting as an inductor in series with each of the primary and secondary circuits.

Leakage inductance depends on the geometry of the core and the windings. Voltage drop across the leakage reactance results in often undesirable supply regulation with varying transformer load. But it can also be useful for harmonic isolation (attenuating higher frequencies) of some loads.[1]

Although discussed exclusively in relation to transformers in this article, leakage inductance applies to any imperfectly-coupled magnetic circuit device including especially motors."

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leakage_inductance

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 16, 2015, 05:07:46 AM
I still would like to see some documentation on the claimed "O.U." from that coil Chris posted.  If he has done it, great, Nobel prize time,
if not, then maybe he will learn something about measurements that he did not know.

This should be big news......let's see it.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 05:13:59 AM
Yes, and that map will be of a figure 8/peanut shape. But the steel laminate dose not jump over the center of the dipole because of an even pull force in each direction, it seems to jump because at the center of the dipole there is an even amount of negatively and positively charged particles, and the net reaction on the steel laminate is 0.
Where is there any evidence for these alleged "particles"?  Do these particles have mass or momentum?  What can we do to detect these alleged particles?

What do you contend the force on a chunk of permeable material that is close to a magnet is proportional to?  Express it any way that you feel comfortable with, but be as specific as you can.  When we can hone your contention down to accepted scientific terms, then we can devise a test or set of tests against the contention.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 05:14:27 AM
I still would like to see some documentation on the claimed "O.U." from that coil Chris posted.  If he has done it, great, Nobel prize time,
if not, then maybe he will learn something about measurements that he did not know.

This should be big news......let's see it.

Bill

@Bill

A Great person once said: "I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own"

You are welcome to use My Ideas/Work if you don't have any or your own!

Good Luck!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 16, 2015, 05:17:26 AM
@Bill

A Great person once said: "I don't care that they stole my idea . . I care that they don't have any of their own"

You are welcome to use My Ideas if you don't have any or your own!

Good Luck!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

Your ideas suck and I don't know why anyone would want to use them.  I have plenty of my own, thanks, and...guess what?  My ideas actually work.
So, is this your way of saying that you have not achieved O.U. as you have claimed?

A false claim then?

I thought as much.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 05:22:14 AM
Your ideas suck and I don't know why anyone would want to use them.  I have plenty of my own, thanks, and...guess what?  My ideas actually work.
So, is this your way of saying that you have not achieved O.U. as you have claimed?

A false claim then?

I thought as much.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Bill

@Bill

You Know What They Say About Assumptions!

For there is only one proof of OU, build your own and see.

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 16, 2015, 05:29:03 AM
Where is there any evidence for these alleged "particles"?  Do these particles have mass or momentum?  What can we do to detect these alleged particles?

What do you contend the force on a chunk of permeable material that is close to a magnet is proportional to?  Express it any way that you feel comfortable with, but be as specific as you can.  When we can hone your contention down to accepted scientific terms, then we can devise a test or set of tests against the contention.
The particles have mass Mark-unless you know of massless particals that can exert a force on a mass?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 16, 2015, 05:30:50 AM
@Bill

You Know What They Say About Assumptions!

For there is only one proof of OU, build your own and see.

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

I only build stuff that has more than a rat's chance in hell of working.  So, no thanks.
Is this another way of your saying that you never did get O.U. then?  I mean, you either have it (good for you) or you don't.

Claiming that you have it (or had it) without any real proof or documentation is is a total waste of time for all concerned.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 05:32:25 AM
The particles have mass Mark-unless you know of massless particals that can exert a force on a mass?
OK, so how fast do these particles move, and how much mass do they carry?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 05:38:35 AM
I only build stuff that has more than a rat's chance in hell of working.  So, no thanks.
Is this another way of your saying that you never did get O.U. then?  I mean, you either have it (good for you) or you don't.

Claiming that you have it (or had it) without any real proof or documentation is is a total waste of time for all concerned.

Bill

@Bill - I have noted your Opinion.


Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 05:44:58 AM
@ALL

So we have established that Charge Carriers are Separated in a Generator! Positive on one Terminal and Negative on the other Terminal! This is Sine dependant of course!

Lenz’s Law, is primarily Magnetic in Nature. It is the direct result of Current Flow in the Secondary Coil.

Yet the Secondary's Magnetic Field Vector Sums to Zero to the Primary's Magnetic Field!

Can a Tertiary's Magnetic Field Vector Sum the Secondary to Zero? Yes, it can!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on January 16, 2015, 05:46:55 AM
I still would like to see some documentation on the claimed "O.U." from that coil Chris posted.  If he has done it, great, Nobel prize time,
if not, then maybe he will learn something about measurements that he did not know.

This should be big news......let's see it.

Bill

Heck, I wanna build it.   ;D    Simple enough not to have to argue over it. ;)

Its interesting that the pickup coil gets any output at all.  If we wound 3 coils on the center post of an ecore, 1st coil wound, then second on the 1st, then the 3rd on top of that one, all in 3 separate layers, then connect 1 and 3 in series where their fields negate, there should not be output from coil 2. Or is there?

If we take a a standard transformer, 1 winding primary and a center tapped secondary and then disconnect 2 and 3 at the center taps and arranged them in series, but opposing, we should not get output from the new secondary arrangement if we have input at the primary.

So why is there output in the configuration that Chris has shown?

I used those examples to show standard transformers. Maybe layering is problematic for this idea.  I have seen transformers with separately wound coils, such as a microwave oven transformer, but it doesnt have 3 coils, let alone 2 outer coils of similar build and one coil between them, in line as Chris has shown. 

I built a coil like this, air core, but the middle coil was wound on top of the 2 oppositely wound coils butted in the middle. But I didnt try this configuration.  Also didnt operate it the same. Have seen many ways for this bucking config and actually passed it by as I felt I knew there wouldnt be any output.  ::) :-\   But apparently there must be, let alone questioning for more data or it is considered bunk. ;)

So instead of pushing for more 'required' ::) info in order to possibly have some belief in the claim, why not 'test' the claim, being it doesnt seem so difficult. ;D

Mags

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 05:47:00 AM
@ALL

Floyd Sweet said:

“If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-Field will be created. The energy density of the fields remain as calculated above, but the value of the E-field will double from E/2 to E"

Just some food for thought!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 05:50:33 AM
Heck, I wanna build it.   ;D    Simple enough not to have to argue over it. ;)

Its interesting that the pickup coil gets any output at all.  If we wound 3 coils on the center post of an ecore, 1st coil wound, then second on the 1st, then the 3rd on top of that one, all in 3 separate layers, then connect 1 and 3 in series where their fields negate, there should not be output from coil 2. Or is there?

If we take a a standard transformer, 1 winding primary and a center tapped secondary and then disconnect 2 and 3 at the center taps and arranged them in series, but opposing, we should not get output from the new secondary arrangement if we have input at the primary.

So why is there output in the configuration that Chris has shown?

I used those examples to show standard transformers. Maybe layering is problematic for this idea.  I have seen transformers with separately wound coils, such as a microwave oven transformer, but it doesnt have 3 coils, let alone 2 outer coils of similar build and one coil between them, in line as Chris has shown. 

I built a coil like this, air core, but the middle coil was wound on top of the 2 oppositely wound coils butted in the middle. But I didnt try this configuration.  Also didnt operate it the same. Have seen many ways for this bucking config and actually passed it by as I felt I knew there wouldnt be any output.  ::) :-\   But apparently there must be, let alone questioning for more data or it is considered bunk. ;)

So instead of pushing for more 'required' ::) info in order to possibly have some belief in the claim, why not 'test' the claim, being it doesnt seem so difficult. ;D

Mags

@Magluvin

Youre onto it!

All information is in here: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf

Let me know if you need help! I am happy to help!


Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on January 16, 2015, 06:02:01 AM
@Magluvin

Youre onto it!

All information is in here: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf (http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf)

Let me know if you need help! I am happy to help!


Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

Thanks.  Yeah, probably gunna have some questions. Will post them here, or should there be another thread?  Yet the principals of the magnetic functions still should be here in this thread. ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 06:04:54 AM
So instead of pushing for more 'required' ::) info in order to possibly have some belief in the claim, why not 'test' the claim, being it doesnt seem so difficult. ;D

@ALL

It really is simple! Very Simple, so simple that once you see it you will kick yourself!!!

I recommend to start with something like this first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQgch4L5XY

Then maybe move into the Stan Meyer Configuration:


Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 16, 2015, 06:07:59 AM
Mags
A very nice gesture..... very nice indeed.
and yes seems a very sensible and simple path towards a solution
to this claim.


thank you
Chet
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 06:08:53 AM
Thanks.  Yeah, probably gunna have some questions. Will post them here, or should there be another thread?  Yet the principals of the magnetic functions still should be here in this thread. ;)

Mags

@Magluvin

I have thought another thread too?

URL: http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/new/#new

Tinman - Sorry to flood this thread with Information!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 16, 2015, 06:29:56 AM
"Two extreme examples of the time relationship between voltage and current are found in inductors and capacitors. An inductor is a coil of wire that is used to make motors. A capacitor is made of parallel conductive plates separated by an insulating material. The electrical properties of these two devices are such that if they are both connected to the same AC voltage source, the inductor absorbs energy during the same “half cycle” that the capacitor is giving energy. And similarly, the inductor produces energy during the same “half cycle” that the capacitor absorbs energy. Neither of them absorbs any real power over one complete cycle".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 16, 2015, 06:33:59 AM

@EMJ


Quote
“If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-Field will be created. The energy density of the fields remain as calculated above, but the value of the E-field will double from E/2 to E"


I would agree and we tend to make things very difficult for ourselves which is unfortunate. In more fundamental terms we could say if we negate that which we know does not work and cannot help us then whatever is left must be our answer. I understand nobody wants to hear this philosophical BS but I find it amazing that something so fundamental and intuitive could be so elusive.


I think this is awesome and I could say many things but this is your journey and we have to make the connections and the discoveries for ourselves, that's the way it works.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 16, 2015, 06:41:30 AM
OK, so how fast do these particles move, and how much mass do they carry?
Im working on that, but my theory seems to make sense moreso than the ! I dont know! theory.
Think about it-opposite charges attract. A negative charge has a potential to 0, and positive charges have a potential to 0--both attract materials with a 0 potential, like charges repell, and unlike charges attract. Once we know what these charged particles are, then were home free.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 16, 2015, 06:57:32 AM
@MarkE,

The output from the bi-toroid transformer would need to be rectified to DC, then inverted back to AC at 60 Hertz. Suppose the circuit power from the transformer is insufficient for this re-conversion? What does that have to do with the infinite efficiency of the transformer?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: EMJunkie on January 16, 2015, 06:58:38 AM
@EMJ



I would agree and we tend to make things very difficult for ourselves which is unfortunate. In more fundamental terms we could say if we negate that which we know does not work and cannot help us then whatever is left must be our answer. I understand nobody wants to hear this philosophical BS but I find it amazing that something so fundamental and intuitive could be so elusive.


I think this is awesome and I could say many things but this is your journey and we have to make the connections and the discoveries for ourselves, that's the way it works.


AC

@AC -  A Philosophical Mind I think is as important as the Physics!

If we have a path to move forward and we don't take it then what's it all worth in the end? The answer is simple! Its much more simple than people think, its just the mindset must change!

I certainly understand and do not expect anything from anyone. If you feel like dropping in, as you already know, you will always be welcome!


Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 16, 2015, 07:20:53 AM
@MarkE,

Let's say a butcher grinds 1000 pounds of hamburger from 500 pounds of steer. You ask how come he can't turn the hamburger back into cattle; Therefore the extra meat's imaginary?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 07:51:14 AM
Im working on that, but my theory seems to make sense moreso than the ! I dont know! theory.
Think about it-opposite charges attract. A negative charge has a potential to 0, and positive charges have a potential to 0--both attract materials with a 0 potential, like charges repell, and unlike charges attract. Once we know what these charged particles are, then were home free.
Well a lot of people have thought about it for centuries, documented their ideas and performed experiments to test those ideas.  And that's what's got us to where we are now.  It hardly makes where we are the end all, but it does represent a lot of careful thought and verified observation.

Back to the idea of a magnetic particle flow if you will:  If these particles have mass and/or momentum ( calculus lets us have momentum with essentially zero mass ), I wonder how that could work seeing as how the flow at whatever the velocity is doesn't seem to be detectable in things that have low permeability, like plastic or wood.  This "magnetic wind" therefore doesn't seem to have ordinary properties of mass or momentum.  It seems to "blow harder" on certain materials.  One of the characteristics of this "magnetic wind" is that it always seems to circulate.  We never seem to see it blow from one point spreading in all directions the way the "electric wind" from charged things do.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 08:07:32 AM
@MarkE,

The output from the bi-toroid transformer would need to be rectified to DC, then inverted back to AC at 60 Hertz. Suppose the circuit power from the transformer is insufficient for this re-conversion? What does that have to do with the infinite efficiency of the transformer?
You've got the cart squarely before the horse.  TH has not shown any particular efficiency because he has not performed accurate power tests.  If you have a pair of garden variety 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 digit DMMs  you can do the following experiment with ordinary resistors and a 9V battery or bench power supply set to 10V:

Get a 100K Ohm resistor and a couple of 1 Ohm resistors and a switch. 
Connect the 100k ohm resistor to a banana plug.
Connect both of the 1 Ohm resistors in parallel to the free end of the 100K Ohm resistor. 
Connect one of the resistors to negative side of the battery/power supply directly, and the second resistor through the switch.

Connect the banana plug end of the 100K Ohm resistor into the COM terminal a DMM set up to measure current on a 2mA scale or if the meter supports it, a 200uA scale.  Connect the mA input terminal of the meter to the positive side of the battery/power supply.

Turn the toggle switch wired to the second 1 Ohm resistor off.

Use the second DMM to measure the voltages: 

1a)Across the power supply.  It should be 10V.
1b)Across the 100K Ohm resistor.  It should be 10V.
1c)Across the 1 Ohm resistors.  It should be 0.1mV.

Write all these voltages down.
Read the current from the first DMM.  It should be close to 0.1mA

Now turn the toggle switch on.

Read the voltages and current again.

The voltage across the 1 Ohm resistors didn't change did it? 
So the current and power through the 1 Ohm resistors as a set both doubled, didn't they?
The power through the 1 Ohm resistors doubled, didn't it?
But the voltage from the power supply as read on the voltmeter did not change, did it?
And neither did the voltage as measured across the 100K Ohm resistor, did it?
And the current through the circuit as measured by the first meter didn't change did it?

So, does that mean that you got 2X power through the 1 Ohm resistors without drawing any extra power from the power supply? 
Does it mean you got any free energy?

If TH lacks the skills to convert infinite free energy to useful power, he needs TK's transverter.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 08:13:34 AM
@MarkE,

Let's say a butcher grinds 1000 pounds of hamburger from 500 pounds of steer. You ask how come he can't turn the hamburger back into cattle; Therefore the extra meat's imaginary?
If he is going to try and convince me of such a thing, then we will use my scales before and after.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 16, 2015, 09:41:10 AM
Chris:

I wish you and any participants good luck on the transformer testing thread and I am reposting the picture here again.

I suppose that I have a few suggestions and warning shots to fire across the bow for you and whoever decides to build it.

1.  Forest posted an unrelated link about getting "power from the air."  I would suggest to you and the team that you discourage that because it will mess up the thread which is supposed to be about building and testing your alleged COP 1.7 device.

2.  Where is your own data?  More pictures, measurements, dimensions, scope shots, test methodology, test setup, meter readings, power in and power out measurements?  You are on shaky ground from the get-go because of your limited skills and experience.  So how are we even supposed to know that your COP 1.7 claim is even credible?  I looked through your pdf doc and I didn't see anything like that.

3.  If I was going to build and test your device I would insist on having more information.  Just building off a picture and a claim with no other information gives you almost unlimited opportunities to make up excuses to shoot down any claims from replicators that it doesn't work.  I have seen this happen "all the time" so it's up to you to provide the proper information.

3.  If nobody can replicate your test results the first excuse from the claimant is that the replication wasn't true to the original.  So share your build data.  Is that a rectangular core that forms a closed magnetic circuit?  Where did you get it?  Is there a part number?  Do you have the spec for the ferrite core material?  What gauge of wire and how many turns?  If there are diodes what are the generic part number(s)?  Show some more pictures on your thread, I assume that you still have the device on your bench somewhere.

4.  I will state it again to all of the participants:  Do not let the thread degenerate into a ridiculous mess.  The first person that starts talking about Steron's solid state Orbo should get a demerit point.

5.  If TK or Itsu decide to replicate this device, and they get some help from MarkE and/or Picowatt, then you are going to be in for a rough ride.  The reason I am saying a "rough ride" is because a good replication from that team will be definitive and show the real truth.  No amount of name-calling or freaking out is going to change the good solid hard data that can be produced by that combo.  So if you want to show real character, you will have to concede that you were wrong.

6.  I am sorry you are peeved that I am calling it before anybody has built it.  But at the same time I am encouraging anybody that wants to build it to go forward and build it and test it.  I fully understand the determined desire to go and prove it to yourself no matter what anybody says.  Look, transformers either do something special or they don't.  There are 150+ years of history and science behind this.  I don't have nearly the same level of knowledge, experience, or competence as other people around here but that doesn't matter.  I can think clearly and visualize what is going on for stuff like this quite well and in five years I have never been wrong.

7.  If somebody is going to build this and they have limited knowledge and experience then do not be shy and ask your peers for help.  There is nothing worse than watching someone faking it and doing a bunch of nonsensical foolishness on their bench.  I will give you an example.  Recently Russ was making some measurements of some kind of spikey waveform and he was using the digital current meter display on his bench power supply.  For all anybody knows the current sensing circuitry inside a bench power supply is cheap junk and you can't rely on it at all for any serious measurements.  Don't bullshit yourself and ask for help.

8.  When you are going to report your results don't just make a live hand-held YouTube clip that's just a mish-mash of numbers on meters and unexplained shots of scope traces.  Those are totally bullshit clips.  Post your measurement data in table form, show a few pictures, show a schematic and show your measurement test points on the schematic.  Any voltage measurement done with a meter or an oscilloscope is done across two test points.  If you only show one point it's a super fail.  Nobody is going to assume that the unnamed test point is the ground - you must state both test points.

9.  A reminder, this is about making power-in and power-out measurements.  Anybody that relies on the resistor colour-code for the value of their load resistance is making a huge fail.  You take your best quality multimeter and you actually measure the value of the resistor.  Anybody that is too lazy to do that should not even be doing the experiment.

10.  Here is a big bugaboo for the forums:  error tolerances.  Off hand I can't recall any test threads or clips where experimenters made error tolerance estimates to go along with their data.  I am sure it is done sometimes but it is such a rare occurrence that I can't think of one right now.  It would be very confidence inspiring if when you presented your measurement data you included error tolerances.  Hey, I did it when I was 16 years old in my grade 11 physics and chemistry lab reports and you can do it too.

I know this all sounds like a pain in the ass, but it is worth stating.  Clips vary from incoherent messes with rat's nests of alligator clips and zero information to well done clips with full supporting documentation where it's the supporting documentation that counts and not the clip itself.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 16, 2015, 01:35:18 PM
Well a lot of people have thought about it for centuries, documented their ideas and performed experiments to test those ideas.  And that's what's got us to where we are now.  It hardly makes where we are the end all, but it does represent a lot of careful thought and verified observation.

Back to the idea of a magnetic particle flow if you will:  If these particles have mass and/or momentum ( calculus lets us have momentum with essentially zero mass ), I wonder how that could work seeing as how the flow at whatever the velocity is doesn't seem to be detectable in things that have low permeability, like plastic or wood.  This "magnetic wind" therefore doesn't seem to have ordinary properties of mass or momentum.  It seems to "blow harder" on certain materials.  One of the characteristics of this "magnetic wind" is that it always seems to circulate.  We never seem to see it blow from one point spreading in all directions the way the "electric wind" from charged things do.
As far as i know,in order to exert a force on a mass,then that force must also have mass(although the photon needs a bit more thought?). These particles may be some sort we dont know about,and stands to reason as we dont know what it is that grabs a piece of iron and pulls it toward a magnet. That being said,do we know what creates a magnetic field for sure?.

My theory is not just one of the top of my head,it is related to my dad's work(which he didnt get to finish before he passed away). To be straight up front-he knew something we dont,and it's that something i have been looking for for 2 years now. We did work together for some 8 years on various thing's,but the !big event! wasnt discovered until myself and my mother was cleaning up his workshop after he died-and that is where i will stop with that. But while on the road(as i do long haul freight),i do get a lot of time to think,and i try to piece things together so as they make sense.
I just started looking for known examples of charged partical acting on other things not related to magnetic materials or magnets. It is interesting that you said  Quote:I wonder how that could work seeing as how the flow at whatever the velocity is doesn't seem to be detectable in things that have low permeability, like plastic or wood.
My answer for this is we are simply useing the wrong fuel in a sense-wrong particles,and/or wrong frequency. Lets have a look at static charge/electricity,and this also seems to fit quite well with my theory.

Coulomb’s Law seems to indicate that only objects with opposite charges should be attracted to one another,while objects with like charges should repell each other. But this is not always the case, as either will be attracted to objects with a net neutral charge. What else is interesting is that objects that have a weak positive charge are also attracted to objects with a strong positive charge-and the same is true for negatively charged objects. If you run a plastic comb through your hair,you now have your magnet that attracts paper and plastic's-or anything else that has the opposite charge.

As you can see,the above holds true for our humble magnet.Opposite charges attract(north atracted to south),and both charges are attracted to materials with a net neutral charge-EG iron. You will also see that if you take a weak ferrite magnet and a strong neo magnet,the two like poles will stick together when brought close enough. This seems to also confirm that an object with a week negative or positive charge will indeed be attracted to a strong negative or positive charge.

The picture below is my new modle for the humble magnet,and this is what i will be baseing my reserch toward now in regards to magnets.
It just makes more sense,and gives answers to that which we dont have with the current modle of the magnetic field.

So you see,we need different machines to do different job's. It seems to me that it is the type of different charges that attracts different materials.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 16, 2015, 02:14:45 PM
Takeing another look at the similarity between static charge and magnetic charge.

If we take our plastic comb and run it through our hair,we can then pick up a piece of paper with that charge. But if we knock the paper of the comb,it will pick the paper up again,but the attraction will be weaker. After some repeated drops and pickup's of the paper with the charged comb,the paper will eventually have the same amount of negative charge as the comb,and the two will no longer be attracted. The same can be seen with a magnet and a piece of steel,and a good example of this is the bedini ssg pulse motor. Many guys that used soft steel cores made from things like welding rod,or coat hangers cut up into shor segments,found that after a while the performance of the SSG dropped a lot. This was due to the core of the inductor becoming magnetised itself. This was the point on my old forum that i started useing a N/S/N/S magnet arrangement on the rotor,and found it worked better than any other configuration-it stopped the core becoming a magnet it self.

If my theory is correct,and we can find out what these opposite charges are,then that is game/set and match. A little hint to what im thinking here-solar pannels,hydrogen fuel cells as examples.

The solar pannel.
As we know,you cant see light itself,but only what it reflects off. You cant feel light other that the source heat if your close enough. You cant smell light(as far as i know),and you cant taste it. Infact,the only reason we know it's there(as far as our human sensors go),is the fact that it illuminates our surroundings-->and yet the solar panel is designed in such a way that it can turn this light into a DC power source. Quote: Solar or photovoltaic (photo = light, voltaic = voltage or electricity) cells are created from special materials such as Silicon (Si) mixed with other elements, which when exposed to sunlight will generate an electrical current.  Basically sunlight is absorbed into the photovoltaic material, which in turn knocks electrons within the material loose.  This allows the electrons to flow freely within the material structure, creating an electrical current.

The hydrogen fuel cell.
Hydrogen you cant see,smell or touch,and yet once again we can generate electricity with it.
Quote: There are several kinds of fuel cells, and each operates a bit differently. But in general terms, hydrogen atoms enter a fuel cell at the anode where a chemical reaction strips them of their electrons. The hydrogen atoms are now "ionized," and carry a positive electrical charge. The negatively charged electrons provide the current through wires to do work. If alternating current (AC) is needed, the DC output of the fuel cell must be routed through a conversion device called an inverter.

The atom holds many answers to the questions we have. Why dont the negatively charged electrons just shoot of into space via centrifugal force?-->because they are attracted to the positively charged proton,and neutrally charged neutron. This also seems to fit in with my magnetic field theory.

The point of the above(the solar panel and hydrogen fuel cell)is this-->once we know what particles we are dealing with,we can then design a fuel cell/solar panel to create an electric current from these particals.
But what are these positively and negatively charged particles?.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 04:14:41 PM
As far as i know,in order to exert a force on a mass,then that force must also have mass(although the photon needs a bit more thought?). These particles may be some sort we dont know about,and stands to reason as we dont know what it is that grabs a piece of iron and pulls it toward a magnet. That being said,do we know what creates a magnetic field for sure?.
If you go back more than 200 years ago they were just as mystified.
Quote

My theory is not just one of the top of my head,it is related to my dad's work(which he didnt get to finish before he passed away). To be straight up front-he knew something we dont,and it's that something i have been looking for for 2 years now. We did work together for some 8 years on various thing's,but the !big event! wasnt discovered until myself and my mother was cleaning up his workshop after he died-and that is where i will stop with that. But while on the road(as i do long haul freight),i do get a lot of time to think,and i try to piece things together so as they make sense.
I just started looking for known examples of charged partical acting on other things not related to magnetic materials or magnets. It is interesting that you said  Quote:I wonder how that could work seeing as how the flow at whatever the velocity is doesn't seem to be detectable in things that have low permeability, like plastic or wood.
My answer for this is we are simply useing the wrong fuel in a sense-wrong particles,and/or wrong frequency. Lets have a look at static charge/electricity,and this also seems to fit quite well with my theory.
Back to those folks who spent lots of time trying to get a handle on this "magnetic wind":  They performed many experiments to test many ideas.  They found that this "magnetic wind"  does not depend on mass and it doesn't interact with masses the way other masses do.
Quote

Coulomb’s Law seems to indicate that only objects with opposite charges should be attracted to one another,while objects with like charges should repell each other. But this is not always the case, as either will be attracted to objects with a net neutral charge.
How would one detect such a case? A void has balanced charge owing that it doesn't have any charge.  If we place a test charge in the middle of a void, it has no propensity to go anywhere.  One might argue that it is equally attracted or repelled by all the nothing around it.  What nothing could we introduce to break the symmetry of the situation and see if the test charge is attracted or repelled?
Quote
What else is interesting is that objects that have a weak positive charge are also attracted to objects with a strong positive charge-and the same is true for negatively charged objects. If you run a plastic comb through your hair,you now have your magnet that attracts paper and plastic's-or anything else that has the opposite charge.
The "electric wind" has that property that it always seems to emanate in all directions from any test charge we might establish.
Quote

As you can see,the above holds true for our humble magnet.Opposite charges attract(north atracted to south),and both charges are attracted to materials with a net neutral charge-EG iron.
The explanation for that that works with math really, really well is that the iron is attracted in a direction that reduces the energy in the system.  Rocks like to fall.  Magnetic loops like to get as small as possible.
Quote
You will also see that if you take a weak ferrite magnet and a strong neo magnet,the two like poles will stick together when brought close enough.
The conventional explaination for this is the favorable IE lower energy state that results.
Quote
This seems to also confirm that an object with a week negative or positive charge will indeed be attracted to a strong negative or positive charge.

The picture below is my new modle for the humble magnet,and this is what i will be baseing my reserch toward now in regards to magnets.
It just makes more sense,and gives answers to that which we dont have with the current modle of the magnetic field.
When you use the term magnetic field would you mind clarifying what that means to you?
Quote

So you see,we need different machines to do different job's. It seems to me that it is the type of different charges that attracts different materials.
with a little more work I think we can get to a testable hypothesis.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 16, 2015, 05:05:27 PM
If you go back more than 200 years ago they were just as mystified.Back to those folks who spent lots of time trying to get a handle on this "magnetic wind":  They performed many experiments to test many ideas.  They found that this "magnetic wind"  does not depend on mass and it doesn't interact with masses the way other masses do.How would one detect such a case? A void has balanced charge owing that it doesn't have any charge.  If we place a test charge in the middle of a void, it has no propensity to go anywhere.  One might argue that it is equally attracted or repelled by all the nothing around it.  What nothing could we introduce to break the symmetry of the situation and see if the test charge is attracted or repelled?The "electric wind" has that property that it always seems to emanate in all directions from any test charge we might establish.The explanation for that that works with math really, really well is that the iron is attracted in a direction that reduces the energy in the system.  Rocks like to fall.  Magnetic loops like to get as small as possible.The conventional explaination for this is the favorable IE lower energy state that results.with a little more work I think we can get to a testable hypothesis.
Quote
When you use the term magnetic field would you mind clarifying what that means to you?

I think we need to see the PM more as a battery-a long life battery. Seems to me that we have a positive one end and a negative the other. But this battery ejects positively and negatively charged particles continuously. These particles are ejected from each end of the magnet,and then turn toward eachother,due to there attraction to each other-as depicted in my last diagram.

If we relate it(the PM) to a battery,then that would be two batteries hooked in series,and where the series conection between the positive of one battery and the negative of the other battery becomes our PM's center point between the dipole. So from center to one side gives us a negative charge flow,while from the center to the other side gives us a positive charge flow.

If we are to use what we know today to be true,then these particles must have mass to be able to exert a force on another mass,and if these particles do have mass and also motion,then they can do useful work. But how do we(the plain forum dwellers)find out if these particles exist,and if they do,what are they?.) This is the!get stuck! point. Once that is out of the way,and we know what we have,then it's just a matter of finding a material that can convert/use these particles to generate electricity-just like the solar panel dose with light.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 05:13:34 PM
I think we need to see the PM more as a battery-a long life battery. Seems to me that we have a positive one end and a negative the other.
What do you think of a single loop of wire?  Where is the north end or south end?
Quote
But this battery ejects positively and negatively charged particles continuously. These particles are ejected from each end of the magnet,and then turn toward eachother,due to there attraction to each other-as depicted in my last diagram.

If we relate it(the PM) to a battery,then that would be two batteries hooked in series,and where the series conection between the positive of one battery and the negative of the other battery becomes our PM's center point between the dipole. So from center to one side gives us a negative charge flow,while from the center to the other side gives us a positive charge flow.
Why the middle and not 20% along or 1% or 0.001%?
Quote

If we are to use what we know today to be true,then these particles must have mass to be able to exert a force on another mass,and if these particles do have mass and also motion,then they can do useful work. But how do we(the plain forum dwellers)find out if these particles exist,and if they do,what are they?.) This is the!get stuck! point. Once that is out of the way,and we know what we have,then it's just a matter of finding a material that can convert/use these particles to generate electricity-just like the solar panel dose with light.
You need an explanation for why they exert different amounts of force on different materials of the same mass.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 16, 2015, 05:34:34 PM
Quote
What do you think of a single loop of wire?  Where is the north end or south end?
A single loop of wire will produce nothing at all-a single loop of wire is not a circuit-->may work as an antena though.

Quote
Why the middle and not 20% along or 1% or 0.001%?
For equilibrium.

Quote
You need an explanation for why they exert different amounts of force on different materials of the same mass.
This would come down to material makeup,and how the charged particles react to the materials structure,much like copper is a better conductor to that of say stainless steel.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Floor on January 16, 2015, 05:49:19 PM
@Tinman

Like you, I sometimes create my own models for the flow of magnetic energy,   Undoubtedly, the standard dogmas work and are useful as well.  A lot of people who have perhaps to much academic conditioning and not enough education, find it difficult to do this.   I prefer to think of the laws written by man about physics as theorems rather than as laws.   Like the Pythagorean theorem not the Pythagorean law.  This keeps the mind open, and shows a little humility I think, in the face of the immensity in which we exist.

Dogma is not inherently a bad thing.  Just as one needs a foot hold to spring from,  one needs a mental base to proceed from.  Additionally, agreements upon dogmas simplify communication when people are engaged within standardized processes of design and teaching.  However those who are engaged long term, in design, teaching or learning, some times unknowingly condition their minds to the dogmas that they are supposed to be using, to such a degree that those people are rather,  used by these dogmas instead.  All of us so, to varying degrees.

I am amazed by the number of discoveries that are made by participants in this forum.  I am also amazed by the shortness of time it which this some times occurs. 

I didn't say new discoveries.  But I think that there have been quite a few of these as well.   It bothers me that when some one makes a discovery on the forum,  that all to often those who know the discovery to be “nothing new”  say so with out first giving sincere congratulations.  Not only this but the communication it typically made dismissively and with condescention.   We should be amazed by the brilliance of our fellows minds, and by the rapidity at which these discoveries have been remade. 

Discovery of this kind is a joy to the discoverer, and the bringing forward of the abilty to make discovery is the purpose of education and the meaning of the word education. 

Instruction is a boreing and repdative task in which the instructor learns nothing and only / perhaps
conditions his mind more deeply.   An educator allways learns more than the student.

People need consider the root and meaning of the word authoity, and it's distinction from the word
authoritarian.
 
            keep free and
            keep up the good work
            best wishes
           
                   floor
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 16, 2015, 09:53:28 PM
Tinman:

Quote
A single loop of wire will produce nothing at all-a single loop of wire is not a circuit-->may work as an antena though.

I think it's pretty obvious that he means a single loop of wire with DC current flowing through it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 16, 2015, 10:40:21 PM
A single loop of wire will produce nothing at all-a single loop of wire is not a circuit-->may work as an antena though.
You mean antenna as in something that intercepts an electromagnetic field?  Back to the wire itself:  If we run a DC current through a wire, looped or not where is the "north charge" and where is the "south charge"?
Quote
For equilibrium.
How does that work when if we slice the magnet into three equal sections and pull them apart, each of the three sections loops around its ends.  If the middle was not "charged" then how is it the left piece and the right piece both end up with two poles?
Quote
This would come down to material makeup,and how the charged particles react to the materials structure,much like copper is a better conductor to that of say stainless steel.
So this "magnetic wind" or "magnetic momentum" of flowing particles has behavior that is different than mass?  Yes?  It's "impact force" depends on some other material properties that are specific to magnetism, yes?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 16, 2015, 11:54:42 PM



  I would imagine if you had a straight wire going vertically through your your bench,
carrying a current, surrounded by a ring of compasses the needles would arrange
themselves head to tail in a circle.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: kEhYo77 on January 17, 2015, 12:04:21 AM
The Bloch Wall is the property of SPACE ITSELF, not matter.

That is why each piece of a divided magnet changes electromagnetic stress on space in a new way, forming multiple Bloch Walls for each piece of a magnet.
This zone might be the influx on dielectricity, that makes the electrons spin. Because the axis of the spin of electrons in magnet's material is coherent,
the zone of influx of the aetheric energy is so pronounced and observable.


It must be an influx of some significant energy in that region of space, the proof is right before your eyes on the Earth's equator, where life thrives best and the trees grow sky high.


The discovered straight line around our planet that connects all ancient sites might just have been ancient equator before polar crust shift.
Now imagine all those piramidal stuctures of the past as collectors of that Bloch Wall Energy Influx?!!

It is that simple  8)


kEhYo
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 12:34:43 AM
Kehyo:

Basically just about everything you said is nonsense.  Where do you get these ideas from?  I am sure it has occurred to you that at the Equator the Earth receives the most sunlight and that means the most energy and that becomes the most robust abundance of life.

Quote
the zone of influx of the aetheric energy is so pronounced and observable.

What is your alleged "aetheric energy" and how do you observe it?

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 17, 2015, 12:36:46 AM
Kehyo:

Basically just about everything you said is nonsense.  Where do you get these ideas from?

MileHigh

Oh, the diplomacy...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 12:40:41 AM
Oh, the diplomacy...

Better that than a never-ending grotesque monologue about bodily functions.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 17, 2015, 12:52:39 AM


  I would imagine if you had a straight wire going vertically through your your bench,
carrying a current, surrounded by a ring of compasses the needles would arrange
themselves head to tail in a circle.
You imagine correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oersted%27s_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oersted%27s_law)
(and many thousands more like that)
http://members.shaw.ca/barry-barclay/Notes/magfield/bconduc.htm (http://members.shaw.ca/barry-barclay/Notes/magfield/bconduc.htm)
http://members.shaw.ca/barry-barclay/Physics%20Applets/ph11e/mfwire.htm (http://members.shaw.ca/barry-barclay/Physics%20Applets/ph11e/mfwire.htm)
(move the compass around with your mouse)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 17, 2015, 01:10:24 AM
Tinman:

I think it's pretty obvious that he means a single loop of wire with DC current flowing through it.

MileHigh
Quote MarkE-post 857- It is not up to me to second guess you.  It is up to you to specify your proposed set-up.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 01:27:37 AM
Quote MarkE-post 857- It is not up to me to second guess you.  It is up to you to specify your proposed set-up.
You are quite correct I did not specify that the wire was carrying a current and it is not up to you to second guess.  So please allow me to clarify:

If we take a wire and pass a DC current through it,  according to your ideas where is the north charge and where is the south charge?

If we take that same wire passing a DC current and form it into a loop 2cm in diameter where is the north charge and where is the south charge?

If we take a longer wire passing a DC current and form it into two adjacent loops 2cm in diameter, spaced 1 cm apart where is the north charge and where is the south charge?

If we take a still longer wire still passing a DC current and form it into fifty loops 2cm in diameter, each spaced 1cm apart, a straight section of 1meter, and another fifty loops 2cm in diameter, each spaced 1cm apart, where is the north charge and where is the south charge?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: kEhYo77 on January 17, 2015, 02:00:57 AM
  I am sure it has occurred to you that at the Equator the Earth receives the most sunlight and that means the most energy

Are You sure?
Have you measured it?
With what?
And in what range of frequencies?
Is the WHOLE spectrum analysis on the energy exchange with surrounding space available in peer reviewed studies?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 17, 2015, 02:11:51 AM
Kehyo:

Basically just about everything you said is nonsense.


Oh, the diplomacy...

Better that than a never-ending grotesque monologue about bodily functions.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that forum member Kehyo, the person insulted with provocation by the MH arshole would strongly disagree.

And his is the only opinion that matters in this instance.

I, on the other hand reserve my insults and vitriol for nitpickers trolls shills and arse holes who do their utmost to discourage members like Kehyo from sharing their thoughts and ideas among people like me, who are interested in hearing them.

Anyone who want to be treated with respect by me need only conduct themselves in a respectful manner when interacting the Kehyo 's on this site.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 02:14:15 AM
Are You sure?
Have you measured it?
With what?
And in what range of frequencies?
Is the WHOLE spectrum analysis on the energy exchange with surrounding space available in peer reviewed studies?

For starters, you were probably taught this for the first time in kiddies geography class in grade three when you were nine years old.  Then there is just plain common sense.  Shine a flashlight at a beach ball if you are not sure of yourself.  See the attached graphic, it took me 10 seconds to find it online.

So, will you answer my questions now?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 02:17:38 AM
For starters, you were probably taught this for the first time in kiddies geography class in grade three when you were nine years old.  Then there is just plain common sense.  Shine a flashlight at a beach ball if you are not sure of yourself.  See the attached graphic, it took me 10 seconds to find it online.

So, will you answer my questions now?
Is that why it is always so cold in the tropics?  Is it because biresonant dielectricity forms a magnetic orgone vortex?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 02:18:18 AM
Quote
Anyone who want to be treated with respect by me need only conduct themselves in a respectful manner when interacting the Kehyo 's on this site.

You are easily the creepiest person on this web site.  'Nuff said.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 17, 2015, 02:24:13 AM
You are easily the creepiest person on this web site.  'Nuff said.

Coming from nearly the most disrespected dooshbag and arshole on the site, I consider that to be an affirmation.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: kEhYo77 on January 17, 2015, 02:24:49 AM
For starters, you were probably taught this for the first time in kiddies geography class in grade three when you were nine years old.  Then there is just plain common sense.  Shine a flashlight at a beach ball if you are not sure of yourself.  See the attached graphic, it took me 10 seconds to find it online.

So, will you answer my questions now?


Irrelevant, I asked about the whole balance of energy exchange with surrounding space.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 02:26:50 AM
Coming from nearly the most disrespected dooshbag and arshole on the site, I consider that to be an affirmation.

Regards...

Just look in the mirror for that.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 02:31:13 AM

Irrelevant, I asked about the whole balance of energy exchange with surrounding space.

You are just BSing and making a spectacle of yourself for some perceived gain in Brownie points.

Are you going to answer my questions in post #1242 or is this the end of the merry prankster?  Do you have an "aetheric energy" meter since you state that it is observable?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 17, 2015, 02:31:36 AM
Just look in the mirror for that.

Ah so...the old hidden 2 way mirror trick, to get me to gaze upon the troll directly.

That doosh can't get up early enough to fool ol' Cap...aaaayup.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 17, 2015, 02:33:44 AM
You are quite correct I did not specify that the wire was carrying a current and it is not up to you to second guess.  So please allow me to clarify:



Quote
If we take a wire and pass a DC current through it,  according to your ideas where is the north charge and where is the south charge?
This supports my theory. If we are to call them north and south charges,then each charge of opposite potential travels in opposite direction until such time as they merge together. If one end of the compass needle points in the direction of the north charge,then the other end of the compass needle points to the opposite charge-the south charge.

Quote
If we take that same wire passing a DC current and form it into a loop 2cm in diameter where is the north charge and where is the south charge?
The north charge will travel from center of the loop outward in one direction(depending on current flow direction through the loop),and rap around the loop,while the south charge will travel from the center of the loop and travel outward in the opposite direction to that of the north charge,and rap around the loop in a counter direction to that of the north charge.-See pic below.

Quote
If we take a longer wire passing a DC current and form it into two adjacent loops 2cm in diameter, spaced 1 cm apart where is the north charge and where is the south charge?
This would be dependant on the size of the wire,and the amount of current being passed through it. If enough current is supplied to the wire,then the fields of each loop would start to merge together to form on field to that depicted below.

Quote
If we take a still longer wire still passing a DC current and form it into fifty loops 2cm in diameter, each spaced 1cm apart, a straight section of 1meter, and another fifty loops 2cm in diameter, each spaced 1cm apart, where is the north charge and where is the south charge?

As above,and i suspect that the 1 meter distance between the two sets of loops is enough to keep the two complete fields seperate.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 02:35:09 AM
You are easily the creepiest person on this web site.  'Nuff said.
One could make a parody of "The most interesting man in the world" from that. 

"... fill in description of acts ... He is the creepiest person on this web site." 

"I don't always troll referencing bodily functions, but when I do, I try to disgust.  Stay creepy my friends."


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 17, 2015, 02:36:26 AM
Just look in the mirror for that.

Geeze, Crap-Z-ro claims that you are the most disrespected on this website?  By whom...him?  I would agree with that.

Crap-Z-ro disrespects anyone that is more intelligent and educated than he is...and that includes just about everyone.

MH, I would ask him to show just one single post of his that offered any real contribution to ANY subject on this site.  He will not be able to.
He can, however, offer thousands of posts about bodily functions, sexual preferences, gay activities, etc.

He is still on super-permanent IGNORE but, I could not help seeing his post in your quote. (I wish we could fix that)  You have offered a lot of useful and
intelligent postings that have real information.  Crap-Z-ro...not so much.

So, my advice is to just carry on and ignore him...literally.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 02:36:57 AM
Cap Zero:

Have a good wank over this series of movies, they are right up your alley.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1467304/?ref_=nv_sr_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1467304/?ref_=nv_sr_1)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 17, 2015, 02:39:56 AM
One could make a parody of "The most interesting man in the world" from that. 

"... fill in description of acts ... He is the creepiest person on this web site." 

"I don't always troll referencing bodily functions, but when I do, I try to disgust.  Stay creepy my friends."

Great premise...but incorrectly applied.

A real forum troll wood have closed the loop.

Using a troll buster as a substitute didn't mut the custer.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 02:41:05 AM

Irrelevant, I asked about the whole balance of energy exchange with surrounding space.
A suggestive fact might be that average temperatures are highest near the equator and lowest near the poles.  Is the reason for that:

a) Far more solar radiation less reradiative loss at the equator versus the poles?
b) A terrestrial process that pumps heat from the poles to the equator?
c) Something else?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 17, 2015, 02:42:30 AM
Cap Zero:

Have a good wank over this series of movies, they are right up your alley.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1467304/?ref_=nv_sr_1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1467304/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

A loyal reader correctly pointed out that viewing that link wood be akin to directly interacting with a lowly troll.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 02:50:57 AM
This supports my theory. If we are to call them north and south charges,then each charge of opposite potential travels in opposite direction until such time as they merge together. If one end of the compass needle points in the direction of the north charge,then the other end of the compass needle points to the opposite charge-the south charge.
From your drawing, there is a strong dipole across the meridian in the center of the ring from which the opposing north and south charges both emanate in opposite directions, circle around and cancel outside the ring.  Why do they attract and cancel outside the ring but not inside the ring?
Quote

The north charge will travel from center of the loop outward in one direction(depending on current flow direction through the loop),and rap around the loop,while the south charge will travel from the center of the loop and travel outward in the opposite direction to that of the north charge,and rap around the loop in a counter direction to that of the north charge.-See pic below.
How can that be that across an infintesimally small distance in the middle a strong north charge and a strong south charge each form and go opposite ways away from each other?  Why don't they just cancel right there in the middle inside the ring?
Quote
This would be dependant on the size of the wire,and the amount of current being passed through it. If enough current is supplied to the wire,then the fields of each loop would start to merge together to form on field to that depicted below.
Are you saying that you believe in linear superposition?  IOW do you believe that we can add multiple fields together mathematically and get the correct values for the total observed field?
Quote

As above,and i suspect that the 1 meter distance between the two sets of loops is enough to keep the two complete fields seperate.
OK so go with that suspicion.  Where is north and where is south?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 17, 2015, 03:24:40 AM
Are you saying that you believe in linear superposition?  OK so go with that suspicion.  Where is north and where is south?
Quote
From your drawing, there is a strong dipole across the meridian in the center of the ring from which the opposing north and south charges both emanate in opposite directions, circle around and cancel outside the ring.  Why do they attract and cancel outside the ring but not inside the ring? How can that be that across an infintesimally small distance in the middle a strong north charge and a strong south charge each form and go opposite ways away from each other?  Why don't they just cancel right there in the middle inside the ring?
If we drop a pebble into a bucket of water,do not the ripples form from the center and roll out toward the rim of the bucket,only to be deflected from the bucket and meet back in the middle?.

Quote
IOW do you believe that we can add multiple fields together mathematically and get the correct values for the total observed field?
Did i not say some time back that by adding small PM's together the field strength grow"s?
We need to get away from electromagnets for the time being,as we wish to find a way to gather an electrical power from the two opposite charges within a PM. The electromagnet also has an electric field to contend with-dose a PM?.
Im not even remotely interested in electromagnets,as they consume power to carry out the same job to that of a PM that dose not consume any power. My work is based around a PM-not an electromagnet,and i get the feeling Mark that you are trying to turn left here,when im trying to go straight ahead.

If we are to look at the static charge in the comb,are we to assume that the comb has a charge of only one potential?-is this the monopole equivalent?. Or is it the equivalent to that of a capacitor,where the two charges are sepperated by a dielectric(the air) and the paper is the opposite or neutral charge to that of the comb.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 17, 2015, 03:30:20 AM


If we drop a pebble into a bucket of water,do not the ripples form from the center and roll out toward the rim of the bucket,only to be deflected from the bucket and meet back in the middle?.




Tinman, the above example concerns both divergent and convergent waves.  Are you positing that magnetic waves might have both of these properties?

I am just asking as I do not know the answer.  I was just going with your bucket example above.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 17, 2015, 03:34:56 AM
I have just responded to an email notification that the forum's designated arse kisser - the butt pirate - had posted...but his post is nowhere to be seen on my end.

We have another ou.com mystery here.

I am going to make a list of theories to account for the missing/invisible post of the forum's designated arse kisser.

Any thoughts or ideas are welcome...readers can PM me your guesses if privacy is a concern.

1.  Intervention by ADM Stefan (possibly a request by the forum's designated arse kisser to make it so I couldn't read his dull colorless mutterings anymore.

2.  The forum's designated arse kisser found a way to accomplish it himself.

3.  A Complaint was made to Stefan regarding the forum's designated arse kisser, who, through his conduct has besmirched the reputation of the Dull Colorless Society.

4.  The forum's designated arse kisser has now really put me on ignore...after lying about doing so earlier on.

5.  Only he is able to see his posts...possibly divine intervention.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 03:47:42 AM
How about we all just stop cold and let Mark and Tinman have their discussion about magnetism?  At this point we are just spamming this thread called "Magnet Myths and Misconceptions" with nonsense.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 03:56:41 AM
If we drop a pebble into a bucket of water,do not the ripples form from the center and roll out toward the rim of the bucket,only to be deflected from the bucket and meet back in the middle?.
The problem with that analogy is that the water displaces from the middle in all directions.  The differential is between the point where the pebble strikes and everywhere else.  Here, you are showing that north and south form from nowhere, go away from each other when they are supposed to attract and come back to each other.  What is the basis for the singularity where they supposedly form and why do they go away from each other when they supposedly attract?
Quote
Did i not say some time back that by adding small PM's together the field strength grow"s?
So is that a yes on linear superposition?
Quote
We need to get away from electromagnets for the time being,as we wish to find a way to gather an electrical power from the two opposite charges within a PM. The electromagnet also has an electric field to contend with-dose a PM?.
Are you contending that the "magnetic wind" of an electromagnet is fundamentally different in its behavior than the "magnetic wind" of a permanent magnet?
Quote
Im not even remotely interested in electromagnets,as they consume power to carry out the same job to that of a PM that dose not consume any power. My work is based around a PM-not an electromagnet,and i get the feeling Mark that you are trying to turn left here,when im trying to go straight ahead.
That is not true with superconducting magnets.  They go on and on and on all by themselves.  I am trying to get clarity on your ideas so that we can get to a point where we have a testable hypothesis that we can run experiments against.
Quote

If we are to look at the static charge in the comb,are we to assume that the comb has a charge of only one potential?-is this the monopole equivalent?. Or is it the equivalent to that of a capacitor,where the two charges are sepperated by a dielectric(the air) and the paper is the opposite or neutral charge to that of the comb.
The comb, the air, and the paper are all dielectrics.  They are all capable of greatly resisting the flow of charge. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 17, 2015, 04:44:23 AM
How about we all just stop cold and let Mark and Tinman have their discussion about magnetism?  At this point we are just spamming this thread called "Magnet Myths and Misconceptions" with nonsense.

MH:

Do you think it is possible that magnetic waves can be both divergent and convergent?  This is what caught my interest from Tinman's post.  What I mean is, that if there are really magnetic waves...why could they not perform like Tinman's bucket example?

I get what you mean by your post and, yes, it is getting very interesting now so I suppose I will just shut up and watch.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on January 17, 2015, 06:45:56 AM
MH:

Do you think it is possible that magnetic waves can be both divergent and convergent?  This is what caught my interest from Tinman's post.  What I mean is, that if there are really magnetic waves...why could they not perform like Tinman's bucket example?

I get what you mean by your post and, yes, it is getting very interesting now so I suppose I will just shut up and watch.

Bill

I believe in the waves.  ;)    As Tesla said, below radio freq, the magnetic energy wont escape the system? Something like that. So when the freq is in the radio on up, yeah. We can have an ever expanding(and weakening) of the energy in that wave. And if that wave, in 'all' directions, happens to hit a reflective wall out there, like from the inner surface of a big metallic sphere, those waves could bounce back to the center and with virtually all the energy that was used to make the wave. Except for losses along the way, like the friction, or damping from the weight of the water in the bowl, viscosity and gravity affecting the water, all that mess. 

But the water example, the freq doesnt apply as it would with a mag field wave. Afaik. ??? Inertia would happen at any speed/freq.

When linking different things and their similarities, there are always boundaries where they cannot be linked at all. For example electricity as compared to using and example of water or air. I prefer air. Water doesnt compress, air does.  Say if we were to emulate a capacitor in a water or air example. The air would require a reservoir (or 2) that is solid, or say a container that does not physically expand or contract. But the water would need a container with a spring piston, or a rubber diaphragm. Neither is really very good in comparison to electricity, as we dont have the positive and negative attraction and repulsion with the water and air. So circuit emulations beyond simple resistive loads and pumps and/or pressurized containers to show current simulations is about all that can be done. Inductors can be made with pneumatic motors and flywheels. Switches can be valves. But as TK said, we cant simulate mag fields, or like I said, + and - charge effects of electricity.

Ok. too much talk and little sleep makes for long hopefully comprehendable posts.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Magluvin on January 17, 2015, 06:56:30 AM
MH:

Do you think it is possible that magnetic waves can be both divergent and convergent? 
Bill

Like FM radio in your car. Some cars have 2 ant. Its called diversity ant system.  When the car is moving, it can be receiving a signal directly from the station tower, and at times be receiving a bounced signal from a tall building. Sometimes those signals can be in phase, sometimes out of phase. So in phase is a stronger signal than just directly from the tower, and out of phase, no signal at all. So the station goes in and out, not due to just a week signal from the tower or it being blocked.

So the 2 ant setup uses a process that picks between the 2 ant for the best signal, switching back and forth so the listener gets a less interrupted listening experience.

That is a great example of diverging and converging in a very complicated way as compared to the bucket. I think.  ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 07:17:13 AM
MH:

Do you think it is possible that magnetic waves can be both divergent and convergent?  This is what caught my interest from Tinman's post.  What I mean is, that if there are really magnetic waves...why could they not perform like Tinman's bucket example?

I get what you mean by your post and, yes, it is getting very interesting now so I suppose I will just shut up and watch.

Bill

I will just take a stab at this but only with luke-warm conviction because I know that I am not an expert or even that knowledgeable in this realm.  I don't believe that there are "magnetic waves" so I will reduce my comment to EM waves.

My simpleton answer is that as long as the wavelength of the EM wave is 1/10 or smaller than some kind of circular reflecting cylinder then you will observe something like you are talking about.

So if you assume that the wavelength is one meter, then you would need to put your EM source at the center of a cylinder that is at least 10 meters in radius and 10 meters in height.   Then a point-source of EM waves at the center of the cylinder could broadcast and get an echo return signal.   The observable echo will start to disappear as the wavelength starts to increase past one meter.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 07:27:16 AM
I will just take a stab at this but only with like-warm conviction because I know that I am not an expert or even that knowledgeable in this realm.  I don't believe that there are "magnetic waves" so I will reduce my comment to EM waves.

My simpleton answer is that as long as the wavelength of the EM wave is 1/10 or smaller than some kind of circular reflecting cylinder then you will observe something like you are talking about.

So if you assume that the wavelength is one meter, then you would need to put your EM source at the center of a cylinder that is at least 10 meters in radius and 10 meters in height.   Then a point-source of EM waves at the center of the cylinder could broadcast and get an echo return signal.   The observable echo will start to disappear as the wavelength starts to increase past one meter.

MileHigh
If we deal with just a cylindircal container then there are a few things that come into play:

The radius of the cylinder, the propagation velocity through the medium (the water), whether the medium is subjected to a single impulse or a repeating wave, the reflection coefficient at the walls, and finally how lossy the medium is.  For low loss media and a single pulse, the hard wall of the cylinder causes the wave to invert when it hits the wall.  A pulse applied in the middle that lasts for much less time than it takes the wave to get to the wall and return to the center results in ripples that become more and more complex and eventually drop in amplitude.  A pulse train though can have all manner of interesting effects depending on the repetition rate of the pulses and the time it takes waves to go to the edge and come back.  With the right timing either a big peak or a low null at the center are just two of the possibilities.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 17, 2015, 07:39:03 AM
That is not true with superconducting magnets.  They go on and on and on all by themselves.  I am trying to get clarity on your ideas so that we can get to a point where we have a testable hypothesis that we can run experiments against.
Quote
Are you contending that the "magnetic wind" of an electromagnet is fundamentally different in its behavior than the "magnetic wind" of a permanent magnet?
No,i am not. What i am saying is why use power to seek power when we have the same effect without the use of power in the PM.

Quote
The comb, the air, and the paper are all dielectrics.  They are all capable of greatly resisting the flow of charge.

And yet the distance between the comb and piece of paper before the charge diferential becomes active,and the paper jumps up to meat the comb,is about the same distance a piece of feromagnetic material jumps up to meet a decent PM.

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.
 To me,this means that there current modle of the magnetic field is incorrect. This is like knowing how the internal combustion engine work's,but cant explain as to why it gets hot.

The facts are
1-Unlike charges attract-north field is attracted to south field.
2-Both positive and negative charges are attracted to neutral charged materials-both north and south fields are attracted to feromagnetic materials,of which may have a neutral charge,or a lower positive or negative charge than that of the magnets two poles-->this may be those materials that show a weak magnetic reaction to the PM's fields.

If we take say bismuth,which is diamagnetic,we may assume that this material creates a mirror charge(like charge) to the charge that induces it.This causes the two like charges to repelle each other. This could be one of the material needed to make our !magnetic field solar panel!. Or even better-pyrolytic graphite,-but how hard is this to get?.

So lets switch this around Mark,and you tell me what science has to say about the ability of the magnetic field to exert a force without that force having mass.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 17, 2015, 07:51:12 AM
The problem with that analogy is that the water displaces from the middle in all directions.  The differential is between the point where the pebble strikes and everywhere else.  Here, you are showing that north and south form from nowhere, go away from each other when they are supposed to attract and come back to each other.  What is the basis for the singularity where they supposedly form and why do they go away from each other when they supposedly attract?So is that a yes on linear superposition?Are you contending that the "magnetic wind" of an electromagnet is fundamentally different in its behavior than the "magnetic wind" of a permanent magnet?That is not true with superconducting magnets.  They go on and on and on all by themselves.  I am trying to get clarity on your ideas so that we can get to a point where we have a testable hypothesis that we can run experiments against.The comb, the air, and the paper are all dielectrics.  They are all capable of greatly resisting the flow of charge.
Why dose the current magnetic modle insist that unlike charges flow in the same direction?-in through the south,and out through the north. This is suppose to show direction,but direction of what? Now take my theory,and see you now have the two charges of opposite potentials flowing out of the creator(the magnet),and when free they turn and meet due to opposite charges attracting one another.
Before there is union,there must be creation. Two opposite charges must flow in opposite directions before they can be united. Its all well and good to say if we mix hot water and cold water,we get warm water-->but first we must create the hot and cold water.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 17, 2015, 08:09:08 AM
Tinman, the above example concerns both divergent and convergent waves.  Are you positing that magnetic waves might have both of these properties?

I am just asking as I do not know the answer.  I was just going with your bucket example above.

Thanks,

Bill
When you drop a pebble into a bucket of water,you are basically showing the effects of an omnidirectional antenna. This sends a signal out in all directions,and recieves a signal back from all directions. If we do indeed have charges sent out from the magnets pole or a positive or negative potential,then the material that recieves that charge must also then have an opposite charge to send back to the magnets pole that induced it in the first place. It is said that a piece of iron/steel etc will carry a magnets field. Now ,if we stick a piece of iron to the end of the magnet,then it must have the opposite or a neutral polarity/charge to that of the pole of the magnet it is stuck to,as like poles repelle-so it cant have the same polarity or charge.

So you have convergent and divergent waves,or you have positive and negative charges-but only opposites or opposites and neutrals attract.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 12:02:23 PM
No,i am not. What i am saying is why use power to seek power when we have the same effect without the use of power in the PM.
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.  Fair?
Quote

And yet the distance between the comb and piece of paper before the charge diferential becomes active,and the paper jumps up to meat the comb,is about the same distance a piece of feromagnetic material jumps up to meet a decent PM.
I am sorry but the forces that we could develop electrostatically or magnetically are both all over the map.
Quote

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.
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.
Quote

 To me,this means that there current modle of the magnetic field is incorrect. This is like knowing how the internal combustion engine work's,but cant explain as to why it gets hot.
Well, 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.  I appreciate that is little consolation to you and your genuine interest in developing an intuitive understanding of how this stuff works.  But it should afford you some confidence that we don't have things completely cocked-up.  If you ignore all the math, and start around page 100, this publication offers a pretty thorough explanation of how common electrodynamic machines work based on conventional theory:

http://multimechatronics.com/images/uploads/mech_n/Electromechanics.pdf
Quote

The facts are
1-Unlike charges attract-north field is attracted to south field.
Well there is an assumption there of a north and a south field, IE magnetic monopoles.  Do we agree that where one or more magnetic dipoles exist that opposite poles attract?
I am going to break your 2 here into its several separate statements:
Quote
2a-Both positive and negative charges are attracted to neutral charged materials-
No, protons are not electrostatically attracted to neutrons and neither are electrons.
Quote
2b-both north and south fields are attracted to feromagnetic materials,
Again you have to establish that the idea of separate north and south fields exist for this statement to be valid.  Do we agree that ferromagnetic materials are strongly attracted to the poles of a magnet?  Do we agree that you see that attraction as either pole acting like gravity on a mass?  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?
Quote

2b-i. of which may have a neutral charge,or a lower positive or negative charge than that of the magnets two poles-->
2b-i-1. this may be those materials that show a weak magnetic reaction to the PM's fields.

If we take say bismuth,which is diamagnetic,we may assume that this material creates a mirror charge(like charge) to the charge that induces it.This causes the two like charges to repelle each other. This could be one of the material needed to make our !magnetic field solar panel!. Or even better-pyrolytic graphite,-but how hard is this to get?.

So lets switch this around Mark,and you tell me what science has to say about the ability of the magnetic field to exert a force without that force having mass.
ETA:  Just to let you know where I am trying to take you. 

The conventional view is that force on a permeable object (ferrormagnetic) is proportional to the gradient of the flux density (the torque on our large pipes turned away from the parallel in the water flow analogy).  So where the flux density is uniform, there is no net mechanical force (IE no torque on our pipes when they are parallel to the water flow).  With an ordinary bar magnet, near each pole the field curls a lot, so the flux density gradient is high and so is the force.  There the "water flow" is anything but straight and the closer we get to a pole the more curved it gets, so one might perceive as you do that it's the distance from the pole that gives rise to the mechanical force in a way that is similar to electrostatic or gravitational forces.

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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 17, 2015, 02:40:50 PM
    Physicists resort to imaginary particles that travel from the primary of a transformer to the secondary of the transformer.  These are called virtual photons.   Other virtual particles travel from somewhere unknown that create the charge of an electron or proton.  These virtual particles are responsible for the magnetic field.   Following this line of reasoning/bs then an isolated electron sits at the center of a magnetic monopole as does a proton.   There is absolutely no way to tell if the two particles are reacting due to the magnetic field or the electric field as the two appear to be produced by the same flow of virtual particles.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 03:21:52 PM
    Physicists resort to imaginary particles that travel from the primary of a transformer to the secondary of the transformer.  These are called virtual photons.   Other virtual particles travel from somewhere unknown that create the charge of an electron or proton.  These virtual particles are responsible for the magnetic field.   Following this line of reasoning/bs then an isolated electron sits at the center of a magnetic monopole as does a proton.   There is absolutely no way to tell if the two particles are reacting due to the magnetic field or the electric field as the two appear to be produced by the same flow of virtual particles.
You seem to be mangling concepts from QED, and circuit theory alike.  SR accounts for magnetic fields pretty nicely.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 17, 2015, 04:22:11 PM
Quote
Physicists resort to imaginary particles that travel from the primary of a transformer to the secondary of the transformer.  These are called virtual photons.   Other virtual particles travel from somewhere unknown that create the charge of an electron or proton.  These virtual particles are responsible for the magnetic field.   Following this line of reasoning/bs then an isolated electron sits at the center of a magnetic monopole as does a proton.   There is absolutely no way to tell if the two particles are reacting due to the magnetic field or the electric field as the two appear to be produced by the same flow of virtual particles.
[/size]


Heretic!... Burn the witch , burn the witch!


Or sorry wrong thread.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 04:27:10 PM
[/size]


Heretic!... Burn the witch , burn the witch!


Or sorry wrong thread.
AC
How did he get that nose? Can we build a bridge out of him?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 17, 2015, 05:01:39 PM
@Mark
Quote
Permeable, IE magnetically active materials present a low resistance (reluctance) to flux.


The problem I have with this theory is that a magnetic source will induce an opposite magnetic field in piece of iron ie Magnetic Induction. The external field aligns the domains of the iron producing a second opposite magnetic field which then couples to the external one. Thus it would seem this is not a lower resistance path it is a second induced magnetic field coupling to the external one.


If we think about it it would seem to be a simple reversed variation of Lenz law, the source always magnetically induces an opposite polarity in the iron however in this case it does not always oppose as in Lenz Law but always attracts. The phenomena are very similar however one relates to Electromagnetic induction and the other Magnetic induction which also relates closely to Electrostatic induction.


If we have a charged sphere is another neutral sphere nearby a path of lower resistance? Well no, the charged spheres external field produces a charge separation in the neutral sphere producing an opposite polarity E field which is attracted to the first charged sphere. No field lines or flow or low resistance paths are required to explain the phenomena, it is a field related phenomena.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 05:22:18 PM
You are just BSing and making a spectacle of yourself for some perceived gain in Brownie points.

Are you going to answer my questions in post #1242 or is this the end of the merry prankster?  Do you have an "aetheric energy" meter since you state that it is observable?

I guess that he doesn't have an aetheric energy meter.  Call Ghost Busters!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 17, 2015, 05:24:43 PM
I'm not even remotely interested in electromagnets, as they consume power to carry out the same job to that of a PM
Superconducting electromagnets don't consume energy continuously.

You can get one for 60EUR from here and see for yourself
http://shop.can-superconductors.com/index.php?id_product=20&controller=product
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 17, 2015, 10:00:23 PM
Well Chris, your audience on your thread are asking for build details and test details for your alleged over unity transformer.  You should know this from the replication process that has been going on for years on the forums.  From what I could see there were no specifics in your docs and video clips.

It's going to be a real uphill grind if you expect the replicators to do it all themselves.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 17, 2015, 10:17:48 PM
@Mark

The problem I have with this theory is that a magnetic source will induce an opposite magnetic field in piece of iron ie Magnetic Induction.
Say what?  Where do you get that idea?  A magnetic field no more induces an opposite magnetic field in soft iron than a voltage induces an opposite charge in a copper wire.
Quote
The external field aligns the domains of the iron producing a second opposite magnetic field which then couples to the external one.
No, the domains in the soft iron align to the original magnetic field.
Quote
Thus it would seem this is not a lower resistance path it is a second induced magnetic field coupling to the external one.


If we think about it it would seem to be a simple reversed variation of Lenz law, the source always magnetically induces an opposite polarity in the iron however in this case it does not always oppose as in Lenz Law but always attracts. The phenomena are very similar however one relates to Electromagnetic induction and the other Magnetic induction which also relates closely to Electrostatic induction.
Trying to reason out a behavior that doesn't exist is pointless.
Quote


If we have a charged sphere is another neutral sphere nearby a path of lower resistance? Well no, the charged spheres external field produces a charge separation in the neutral sphere producing an opposite polarity E field which is attracted to the first charged sphere. No field lines or flow or low resistance paths are required to explain the phenomena, it is a field related phenomena.
If you have a charged sphere and introduce a conductive uncharged sphere, then the electric field does redistribute, aligning the second sphere to the field of the first:

++++++++++++++++++++++   
+++++++ Sphere 1  +++++++  decreasing positive field with distance
++++++++++++++++++++++


++++++++++++++++++++++                     ------              ++++
+++++++ Sphere 1  +++++++                      -----Sphere2 ++++
++++++++++++++++++++++                     -----               ++++

Quote
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 17, 2015, 11:56:09 PM
The problem I have with this theory is that a magnetic source will induce an opposite magnetic field in piece of iron ie Magnetic Induction.
I think you wanted to write "opposite pole"

The external field aligns the domains of the iron producing a second opposite magnetic field ...
I think you wanted to write "second opposite pole"
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 17, 2015, 11:58:19 PM
the domains in the soft iron align to the original magnetic field.
Yes, but when this external magnetic field is removed, then something unaligns the domains.
What do you call that "something" ?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 18, 2015, 12:41:59 AM



 NoBull,
       I've often wondered about this with solenoids etc., soft iron is used and this doesn't
retain magnetism well, also perhaps the material itself isn't really magnetised but is
just concentrating the field.
               Mm.  John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: 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.
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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 18, 2015, 01:36:47 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.

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...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 18, 2015, 01:41:59 AM
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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 18, 2015, 01:51:37 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 ?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 01:58:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem) proves that using only paramagnetic materials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramagnetism) (such as ferromagnetic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism) iron) it is impossible for a static system to stably levitate against gravity.

 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 02:18:39 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2015, 02:30:18 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?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 02:35:23 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 18, 2015, 02:49:06 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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 18, 2015, 02:50:35 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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2015, 02:55:58 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2015, 03:02:05 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. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 03:40:37 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?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE 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?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman 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. ::)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE 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. ::)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks 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?

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt 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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 18, 2015, 08:40:00 AM
SR?

Special Relativity.  AKA The Special Theory Of Relativity.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt 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 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment).  :o
Now what ? 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull 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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 18, 2015, 12:50:00 PM
Then the claim that a super conductor requires no power input-->rubbish,the power input is in the form of cooling,
Nope, cooling subtracts energy from matter - it does not add energy.
This is elementary.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 18, 2015, 12:52:05 PM
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.
 

So you are indeed referring to electrical charges?

What is keeping the charges separated in that conductive ("dead short") magnet?  Due to the "dead short", why don't the charges just dissipate/equalize as they do in all other conductive materials with respect to static charge?

What about non-conductive ferrites?  Should not an electroscope or electrometer respond to the bunched charges proposed to exist at the poles of a non-conductive ferrite PM?

Conversely, why are "static charged" balloons, combs, and plastic rods not magnetic?

Don't get me wrong, I realize the current understanding is far from complete, but are you actually proposing that magnetic attraction/repulsion between PM's is due to attraction and repulsion of electrical charges in those PM's? 

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 01:11:35 PM
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.
And yet when i ask the question-please explain what or how a magnetic field exerts a force on a magnetically active material useing your current magnetic field modle,no one can come up with an answer. The very same happens when you ask why are two masses attracted to each other=gravity. Then we get-the magnetic field acts like gravity ???
Here we have one unknown trying to show or represent the same effect as another unknow,even though the two unknows are different.

How far are we behind here?. I will show you how little we have learned in the passed 200 years.
We still dont know(even though we apparently have this well proven modle)how a magnetic field exerts a force on a magnetically active material.
We still dont know why gravity works the way it dose-the best we have is that two masses are attracted to each other because they have gravity ::)
Go and try to find a definitive answer as to how the charge is formed that creates lightning.
Example 1-Quote: Now, the cloud becomes a thundercloud. Lots of small bits of ice bump into each other as they move around. All these collisions cause a build up of electrical charge.

Cool,now we can make electricity by throwing snow ball at eachother.

Example 2-Quote: Eventually, the whole cloud fills up with electrical charges. Lighter, positively charged particles form at the top of the cloud. Heavier, negatively charged particles sink to the bottom of the cloud.

And yet the lightning is attracted to the ground. Why dosnt it remain between the two different charge potentials.

So you see NoBull,you ask me to proove my theory,and yet the unknown is still acceptable within the science comunity-and amoungst many here.

200 years later,and the current modle of the magnetic field still has no answers to give. It's an attitude of-it work's,so leave it alone.
Do you see us going any further if we dont start to question that which has not progressed in 200 years. Will you be happy with the same old internal combustion engine for the rest of time?.

The solar panel is one of the greatest inventions of all time,and this is what we need for a magnetic field-a panel that exchanges a magnetic field for electrical energy. I am simply throwing a theory out there that seems to dot all the I's,and it is just a theory-just like many theories out there today in the scientific comunity.If we fully understand how something work's,then we can explain as to why it has the effects it dose-the current magnetic modle dose not do this,so it's time to look elsewhere.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 01:13:38 PM
Nope, cooling subtracts energy from matter - it does not add energy.
This is elementary.
Please show me a device that can cool matter that requires no energy to do so. Liquid nitrogen is made how? if not by a device that requires energy.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 01:31:24 PM




 

PW
Quote
So you are indeed referring to electrical charges?
I am refering that these particles may act like electrical or static charges.

Quote
What is keeping the charges separated in that conductive ("dead short") magnet?  Due to the "dead short", why don't the charges just dissipate/equalize as they do in all other conductive materials with respect to static charge?
A decent 12 volt SLA will have only around a 1.2 ohm internal resistance,why dosnt it go flat?.As the particles are yet unknown,and this is just a theory i am presenting here that may explain the missing link,i dont have all the definitive answers you may seek just yet. But if you ask how todays modle of the magnetic field attracts or repell's magnetically active object,you will still get no answer.

Quote
What about non-conductive ferrites?  Should not an electroscope or electrometer respond to the bunched charges proposed to exist at the poles of a non-conductive ferrite PM?
Again,i have no answer to exactly what these particles may be,so i cannot answer your question above.

Quote
Conversely, why are "static charged" balloons, combs, and plastic rods not magnetic?
It is odd that the 3rd responce to the meaning of magnetic when a search is done on google is -Quote: 3.very attractive or alluring.

Quote
Don't get me wrong, I realize the current understanding is far from complete, but are you actually proposing that magnetic attraction/repulsion between PM's is due to attraction and repulsion of electrical charges in those PM's
As i have stated before,i dont know what these particles are or what there structure may be. But i do believe that they are particles that have an opposite charge to one another. wether that charge is electrical or not is unknow. The word charge has many different meanings,and electrical is only one.

If we cannot complete the current understanding useing the current modle,then maybe it's time to look at another modle that has the same effect as the current,but also gives answers to the cause as well.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 01:38:16 PM
North
Aint that a hoot. totally opposite to that if we use a PM. ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2015, 01:52:28 PM
Aint that a hoot. totally opposite to that if we use a PM. ;)
No, it is very very very basic:  The screwdriver, or nail, or whatever other soft material retains a small part of the magnetic alignment that it is exposed to.  Insert it into an electro magnet where N is towards the end of the screwdriver and field is aligned N-S from the tip towards the handle because that is the way that the field is pointing.  You have put the screwdriver tip in the middle of the magnet.  If you were to construct a long cylindrical magnet magnetized along the long axis and insert the screwdriver into the center of that magnet and then withdraw the screwdriver you will get the same orientation result as doing the same thing with an electro magnet or by inserting the screwdriver into an electromagnet and then shutting the electro magnet off.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 18, 2015, 01:59:43 PM
Tinman,

Just because science does not yet have all the answers does not mean that they are not being sought out.

There is a great deal of research ongoing with regard to our understanding of gravity and magnetism.  I think this century will provide some very astounding answers.  The pieces have already begun to fall into place, particularly over the past decade or two.  The complexity and precision of recent and ongoing experiments and instrumentation is amazing. 

On a much lighter note, did you watch this video?  Although the methodology used leaves some room for discussion, I though it was pretty cool.

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

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 02:02:09 PM
No, it is very very very basic:  The screwdriver, or nail, or whatever other soft material retains a small part of the magnetic alignment that it is exposed to.  Insert it into an electro magnet where N is towards the end of the screwdriver and field is aligned N-S from the tip towards the handle because that is the way that the field is pointing.  You have put the screwdriver tip in the middle of the magnet.  If you were to construct a long cylindrical magnet magnetized along the long axis and insert the screwdriver into the center of that magnet and then withdraw the screwdriver you will get the same orientation result as doing the same thing with an electro magnet or by inserting the screwdriver into an electromagnet and then shutting the electro magnet off.
This would be hard to test and confirm,as to remove the screwdriver from within the long cylindrical magnet,the tip of the screwdriver must also pass through the opposite field.If the field of a PM flows out of the north end befor it makes a turn and heads south,then shouldnt that part of the field represent the field around the electromagnet setup? With an air core electromagnet,the field curls back into the center of the coil as well,but once the screwdriver is inserted into that coil,the field dose not curl back into the center,but forms a field the same as that of a solid PM.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 02:11:58 PM
Tinman,

 


PW
Quote
Just because science does not yet have all the answers does not mean that they are not being sought out.

There is a great deal of research ongoing with regard to our understanding of gravity and magnetism.  I think this century will provide some very astounding answers.  The pieces have already begun to fall into place, particularly over the past decade or two.  The complexity and precision of recent and ongoing experiments and instrumentation is amazing.
I hope the outcome is good,and soon,as im getting older every day. Some times i get sick and tired of waiting for answers that just dont seem to come,so i go looking elsewhere. I see no harm in presenting an alernative theory,and one that seems to fit better that the current in providing answers. But with this comes more questions-what could these particles be?. Well there in lies the problem-i have no means to find out. But what if it's an opportuinty missed just because some are stuck with the current modle. If you had seen what i have seen every day for the past two year's,then you to would be starting to question the reality of the current understandings.

Something is missing here,and im just looking around -so to speak.

Quote
On a much lighter note, did you watch this video?  Although the methodology used leaves some room for discussion, I though it was pretty cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzxTqQ40wSU
I havnt yet,and the bad thing is i have to leave for work again at 2am-i should be in bed getting some sleep right now,but the brain wont rest. Another week on the road ahead,so may be some time before i get to see it. I might go have a look now,and if it's not too long,then i will sit it through.

Cheers
Brad
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 18, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
This would be hard to test and confirm,as to remove the screwdriver from within the long cylindrical magnet,the tip of the screwdriver must also pass through the opposite field.If the field of a PM flows out of the north end befor it makes a turn and heads south,then shouldnt that part of the field represent the field around the electromagnet setup? With an air core electromagnet,the field curls back into the center of the coil as well,but once the screwdriver is inserted into that coil,the field dose not curl back into the center,but forms a field the same as that of a solid PM.
No it is easy to test.  A solenoid is easily constructed or purchased.  Hollow cylindrical IE donut magnets magnetized along the short axis are also readily available.  You created an apples and oranges comparison by placing the screwdriver inside the EM, but next to the PM.  If you don't want to withdraw the screwdriver then shatter the PM while the screwdriver is still inside, or wrap the screwdriver in high temperature insulation and heat the PM past its Curie temperature.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 18, 2015, 02:17:08 PM
I hope the outcome is good,and soon,as im getting older every day. Some times i get sick and tired of waiting for answers that just dont seem to come,so i go looking elsewhere. I see no harm in presenting an alernative theory,and one that seems to fit better that the current in providing answers. But with this comes more questions-what could these particles be?. Well there in lies the problem-i have no means to find out. But what if it's an opportuinty missed just because some are stuck with the current modle. If you had seen what i have seen every day for the past two year's,then you to would be starting to question the reality of the current understandings.

Something is missing here,and im just looking around -so to speak.
I havnt yet,and the bad thing is i have to leave for work again at 2am-i should be in bed getting some sleep right now,but the brain wont rest. Another week on the road ahead,so may be some time before i get to see it. I might go have a look now,and if it's not too long,then i will sit it through.

Cheers
Brad

Perhaps if we knew what you have seen...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 02:22:56 PM
Perhaps if we knew what you have seen...
Perhaps. But at this point in time,i dont feel it's mine to show.Feel free to contact Chet,he knows what it's all about,because at this time ,i must get some sleep and then hit the road. I wont be back on my computor until friday,and the phone is a right pain in the a-s to try and use to comunicate through here.

Thanks PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 18, 2015, 02:25:14 PM
Perhaps. But at this point in time,i dont feel it's mine to show.Feel free to contact Chet,he knows what it's all about,because at this time ,i must get some sleep and then hit the road. I wont be back on my computor until friday,and the phone is a right pain in the a-s to try and use to comunicate through here.

Thanks PW

Don't text and drive!!!

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 18, 2015, 02:31:18 PM
TinMan
have a safe week,keep the greasy side down  :o  ,quite sure your mind will be most occupied on the road.
 I am getting ready to go out for a week myself [watching the "NEW" grand daughter for a week  :o


be safe


picowatt
email below


Chetkremens@Gmail.com
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 18, 2015, 03:05:25 PM
Please show me a device that can cool matter that requires no energy to do so.
Cosmic space
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 18, 2015, 03:09:17 PM
Aint that a hoot. totally opposite to that if we use a PM. ;)
No it ain't because that screwdriver you are referring to was not magnetized inside a PM but it was magnetized inside a coil.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 06:13:39 PM
TinMan
have a safe week,keep the greasy side down  :o  ,quite sure your mind will be most occupied on the road.
 I am getting ready to go out for a week myself [watching the "NEW" grand daughter for a week  :o


be safe


picowatt
email below


Chetkremens@Gmail.com
Thanks Chet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 18, 2015, 06:16:10 PM
Cosmic space
An endless circle NoBull.
But feel free to tell us all how this material gets into space from earth to be cooled without the use of energy?.
Sounds to me as though this cooling process is getting quite expensive ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 19, 2015, 05:14:01 AM
If we use the wire with a current flowing through it that produces a magnetic field around that conductive wire as an example-dose anyone know of a conductor that dose not produce a magnetic field around it when a current is passed through it?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 05:36:56 AM
An endless circle NoBull.
But feel free to tell us all how this material gets into space from earth to be cooled without the use of energy?.
Sounds to me as though this cooling process is getting quite expensive ;)
If the material emits between 1u and 8u there is nothing in its way.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 05:39:48 AM
If we use the wire with a current flowing through it that produces a magnetic field around that conductive wire as an example-dose anyone know of a conductor that dose not produce a magnetic field around it when a current is passed through it?.
It is the current that makes for the field.  The wire is mereley a means to carry the current.  You get the same effect projecting an electron beam.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 19, 2015, 05:43:47 AM
Tinman:

What is the basis for you posing that question?  Any wire that has current flowing through it will have a magnetic field around it.  In fact there is even a magnetic field inside the wire.  That leads into a related question.  What is the simplest inductor?  The answer is a short length of straight wire.

It makes me think of when people post things like, "I tested my coils with copper magnet wire and now I am going to test them with iron wire."  The participants in the thread will wait for the results of the test.  If you ignore the slightly different resistances of the two wires, then there is no possible difference between a coil made with copper wire and coil made with iron wire.

It's the same frustration that I couldn't really give a rat's ass about any more.  What does it take to become a master machinist?  Perhaps three or four years of school and then three or four years of apprenticeship?  Do you think a Jow Blow off the street can just watch a few YouTube clips and then start working in a factory machining aircraft engine parts?  Why in God's name do people think they can buy a scope and a multimeter and then research free energy machines?  You saw Chris fall flat on his face because he couldn't solve a circuit that consisted of one lousy component.  Now he has his own thread to teach people how to build allegedly over unity transformers.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 19, 2015, 05:45:02 AM
It is the current that makes for the field.  The wire is mereley a means to carry the current.  You get the same effect projecting an electron beam.
So where there is current flow there is a magnetic field regardless of what carries that current?
Mark-What if there was a conductor that can carry current, but no magnetic field is produced around that conductor
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 19, 2015, 06:05:04 AM
So where there is current flow there is a magnetic field regardless of what carries that current?
Mark-What if there was a conductor that can carry current, but no magnetic field is produced around that conductor

Tinman,

Do you know of a conductor that can carry current and yet produce no magnetic field?

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 19, 2015, 06:14:24 AM
Tinman,

Do you know of a conductor that can carry current and yet produce no magnetic field?

PW
First up, forgive me if I make typeos, as im on my phone, and the letters are quite small.just waiting to be unloaded here, so took the opertunaty to throw in some questions.

I think I'll stick to asking questions for a while here PW.
So do you think such a conductor exist?
If we had such a conductor that could carry current but produced no magnetic field around it, what would be the outcome if we used this conductive material as the secondary winding on a transformer?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 19, 2015, 06:29:55 AM
First up, forgive me if I make typeos, as im on my phone, and the letters are quite small.just waiting to be unloaded here, so took the opertunaty to throw in some questions.

I think I'll stick to asking questions for a while here PW.
So do you think such a conductor exist?
If we had such a conductor that could carry current but produced no magnetic field around it, what would be the outcome if we used this conductive material as the secondary winding on a transformer?

Tinman,

As I cannot imagine a conductor that does not produce a magnetic field while passing current, that's a tough question. 

I can envision configurations of conductors that DO create magnetic fields while passing current that are so arranged to cancel their fields and present the appearance of producing no measurable magnetic field.

However, as I cannot imagine a conductor that does not produce a magnetic field while passing current, it is just as difficult to imagine how that "special" conductor would respond to a changing magnetic field if utilized in the secondary of a transformer.

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 19, 2015, 06:48:29 AM
Tinman,

As I cannot imagine a conductor that does not produce a magnetic field while passing current, that's a tough question. 

I can envision configurations of conductors that DO create magnetic fields while passing current that are so arranged to cancel their fields and present the appearance of producing no measurable magnetic field.

However, as I cannot imagine a conductor that does not produce a magnetic field while passing current, it is just as difficult to imagine how that "special" conductor would respond to a changing magnetic field if utilized in the secondary of a transformer.

PW
If such a conductor did exist, and was used as the secondary in a transformer, I see only 2 possible outcomes.
1-it wouldnt produce any current
2-it would produce current without reflecting on the primary.

It's a bit of a conundrum really, if it conducts , then induction should happen. But I believe that for induction to occur in the secondary, there needs to be a CEMF.

Now, just to throw a bit more in the mix, what if we had a conductor that produced the opposite field to that of say copper, while maintaining the same current flow direction?

You may think thses are nonsense questions, but I am serching here for those that can think outside the box. Maybe some one has found such conductors, but have not been gaim to tell us about there discovery for fear that the bullshit button will be hit, and they get to bask in the posts full of ridicule.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 07:16:16 AM
Tinman:

What is the basis for you posing that question?  Any wire that has current flowing through it will have a magnetic field around it.  In fact there is even a magnetic field inside the wire.  That leads into a related question.  What is the simplest inductor?  The answer is a short length of straight wire.

It makes me think of when people post things like, "I tested my coils with copper magnet wire and now I am going to test them with iron wire."  The participants in the thread will wait for the results of the test.  If you ignore the slightly different resistances of the two wires, then there is no possible difference between a coil made with copper wire and coil made with iron wire.
That is not quite correct.  An iron wire will because of its permeability have a denser concentration of flux in the wire.  The skin depth will be different due to both the difference in resistivity and permeability.  Higher resistance drives the skin depth higher, while higher permeability drives it lower.
Quote

It's the same frustration that I couldn't really give a rat's ass about any more.  What does it take to become a master machinist?  Perhaps three or four years of school and then three or four years of apprenticeship?  Do you think a Jow Blow off the street can just watch a few YouTube clips and then start working in a factory machining aircraft engine parts?  Why in God's name do people think they can buy a scope and a multimeter and then research free energy machines?  You saw Chris fall flat on his face because he couldn't solve a circuit that consisted of one lousy component.  Now he has his own thread to teach people how to build allegedly over unity transformers.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 07:18:16 AM
So where there is current flow there is a magnetic field regardless of what carries that current?
Yeppers.  Moving charge <=> magnetic field.
Quote
Mark-What if there was a conductor that can carry current, but no magnetic field is produced around that conductor
Can doesn't count.  Current counts.  And please don't confuse overlapping but opposing fields with no field.
Quote
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 19, 2015, 07:19:20 AM
If such a conductor did exist, and was used as the secondary in a transformer, I see only 2 possible outcomes.
1-it wouldnt produce any current
2-it would produce current without reflecting on the primary.

It's a bit of a conundrum really, if it conducts , then induction should happen. But I believe that for induction to occur in the secondary, there needs to be a CEMF.

Now, just to throw a bit more in the mix, what if we had a conductor that produced the opposite field to that of say copper, while maintaining the same current flow direction?

You may think thses are nonsense questions, but I am serching here for those that can think outside the box. Maybe some one has found such conductors, but have not been gaim to tell us about there discovery for fear that the bullshit button will be hit, and they get to bask in the posts full of ridicule.

Tinman,

I am still trying to wrap my head around a conductor that produces no magnetic field while passing a current.

However, a conductor that passes a current wherein the "apparent" electron flow is in the same direction as that of a copper wire while producing a magnetic field opposite to that of the copper conductor sounds a bit more possible if the current flow in the special conductor was more so due to the movement of positive ions (i.e., hole flow).  But even that I would have to ponder a bit.

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 07:24:16 AM
Tinman,

I am still trying to wrap my head around a conductor that produces no magnetic field while passing a current.

However, a conductor that passes a current wherein the "apparent" electron flow is in the same direction as that of a copper wire while producing a magnetic field opposite to that of the copper conductor sounds a bit more possible if the current flow in the special conductor was more so due to the movement of positive ions (i.e., hole flow).  But even that I would have to ponder a bit.

PW
It is not about the conductor it is about the moving charge.  If charge is moving there is a magnetic field or so we think based on application of SR to the electric force.  If one wants to postulate how the world would behave were such a fundamental relationship to not be so then a lot of well tested physics has to go out the window.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 19, 2015, 07:39:55 AM
It is not about the conductor it is about the moving charge.  If charge is moving there is a magnetic field or so we think based on application of SR to the electric force.  If one wants to postulate how the world would behave were such a fundamental relationship to not be so then a lot of well tested physics has to go out the window.

MarkE,

I agree.

That is why I stated I was still trying to imagine a conductor that passes current without producing a magnetic field.

I am, however, still trying to ponder whether it might be possible to have an "apparent" electron flow in a given direction while producing a magnetic field opposite to conventional electron flow in that direction.

Any thoughts?

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 19, 2015, 07:51:48 AM
MarkE,

I agree.

That is why I stated I was still trying to imagine a conductor that passes current without producing a magnetic field.

I am, however, still trying to ponder whether it might be possible to have an "apparent" electron flow in a given direction while producing a magnetic field opposite to conventional electron flow in that direction.

Any thoughts?

PW
Now your onto it.
Oh, by the way-who said electrons are the only charge carriers.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 19, 2015, 07:59:28 AM
Now your onto it.
Oh, by the way-who said electrons are the only charge carriers.

Tinman,

So, is this just a thought experiment or "otherwise"?

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 08:27:10 AM
MarkE,

I agree.

That is why I stated I was still trying to imagine a conductor that passes current without producing a magnetic field.

I am, however, still trying to ponder whether it might be possible to have an "apparent" electron flow in a given direction while producing a magnetic field opposite to conventional electron flow in that direction.

Any thoughts?

PW
If there is net charge movement, then there is a magnetic field.  Whether the charge moves by way of charged particles through a volume or charge appears to move because of charge movement on either side of a volume there is a magnetic field intrinsic to that charge movement, or so we think applying SR to: charge, time, distance, and the electric force.   

I don't know where Tinman can go by suggesting moving charge (in a wire) of any kind without a magnetic field when to the best of our knowledge a magnetic field is intrinsic to moving charge.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 08:39:35 AM

Hi Tinman,

What follows is pure speculation, consider this as a thought experiment.  I am not interested in facts, no facts will be presented, I have no interest in finding supporting literature for the concepts I'm going to suggest.  The purpose of this post is for entertainment purposes only.  Now having said this, and expressing no interest in the facts, I am sure this will be ignored and the ideas presented challenged.  I want to make it clear that I have no desire to debate the known and established.  I am most interested in that which is known but isn't established.  This is about opening the mind to new possibilities, its about being creative, dissolving the box which imprisons our creativity.

Assuming we are a few years off from being able to purchase such a conductor from our local outlet, a little time should be invested in finding a means for producing this condition with our present understanding, using materials we are familiar with, and can acquire now.  We know that it is possible to produce the zero magnetic field, we see the concept in wire wound resistors.  We know that when we wind two conductors together and cause current to flow in them, the fields projected from these wires can neutralize when current is applied to them in the proper manner, you are well aware of this. 

It is clear that such a configuration presents us with a very different situation than the norm, and yet few realize the significance of such a configuration.  When we are guided by the basic idea which is embodied in the definition of inductance, the role of which is to oppose change in flux or current, we would begin to understand the significance.  It is my opinion, one which I will not defend, in a configuration where the fields are neutralizing, two EMF are induced, the currents associated with these two are in an ideal condition equal and opposite, the magnetic fields associated with them equal and opposite, the net effect, the mechanism for opposition to change in current is neutralized. 

This simple idea, "neutralization of the mechanism responsible for opposition to change in current",  opens every door which has up to this point been slammed in our faces.  The benefits granted to a system based on an application of the aforementioned are too numerous to mention, and it is my firm belief that all of them lead to more out than in.




Regards
Aryton Perry windings greatly reduce but do not eliminate inductance in wire wound resistors.  As long as there is physical space between the centers of two conductors they cannot completely couple their fields and so cannot create a net field that adds to zero.  A coaxial cable does a really good job of establishing two fields that outside the outer conductor the fields (in the case of rigid coax) exactly cancel.  So if one wanted to test the idea of a transformer with neutralized flux, they could go buy a bunch of thin coax and use that for the windings.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Floor on January 19, 2015, 09:20:31 AM
@ all readers

Is it a misconception that permanent magnets can do work, or is it a misconception that they can not do work ?

Photos / demonstration of the device are forth coming as soon as I get it mounted on a good solid base.  At this point I have only been setting it up on the coffee table.

Please find the attached file  Mag Ramp 1. PDF

             floor
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 10:40:43 AM
@ all readers

Is it a misconception that permanent magnets can do work, or is it a misconception that they can not do work ?

Photos / demonstration of the device are forth coming as soon as I get it mounted on a good solid base.  At this point I have only been setting it up on the coffee table.

Please find the attached file  Mag Ramp 1. PDF

             floor
Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not generate a never ending cash flow.

In the case of this second SMOT variant that you have presented in the past few weeks, the magnets do not perform any cyclical work just as they don't in any SMOT.  As with your previdously offered SMOT, your machine does not complete even one cycle.  It goes from an initial state of higher total potential energy to an ending state of lower total potential energy.  Your machine as depicted takes the steel ball from a higher to lower magnetic potential.  Along the way the gravitational potential of the ball rises and then falls.  At the end of your sequence, you are deficit both magnetic and gravitational potential energy compared to your starting state.  Like all SMOTs, external work is required to overcome that deficit and return the ball back to its original position. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 19, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
Tinman,

So, is this just a thought experiment or "otherwise"?

PW
Yes-your thought experiment PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 19, 2015, 11:13:00 AM
If there is net charge movement, then there is a magnetic field.  Whether the charge moves by way of charged particles through a volume or charge appears to move because of charge movement on either side of a volume there is a magnetic field intrinsic to that charge movement, or so we think applying SR to: charge, time, distance, and the electric force.   

I don't know where Tinman can go by suggesting moving charge (in a wire) of any kind without a magnetic field when to the best of our knowledge a magnetic field is intrinsic to moving charge.
I never specified a wire Mark
There are other materials that conduct/carry current.
What about carbon fibre for instance.
Remember-think outside the norm. Lets see if we can find solutions that fit in with known science-lets find the loopholes
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 19, 2015, 12:21:55 PM
ErFinder:

You can run computer programs that just blindly try out millions and billions of computations in search of a good result that solves your problem.  With enough computing power and enough time I am certain a lot of valuable research has been done like this.

On the other hand, you can take a billion monkeys and sit them at a billion keyboards and have them type out stuff for a billion years, and the chances of them producing a single 2000-character page of English text that is coherent and makes sense is almost zero.

As a single individual with the thinking power of one person, forgetting about facts and reality and what we know does not give you much of a chance of coming up with some ideas of merit and value that can help us do practical things or solve our problems.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 12:22:00 PM
I never specified a wire Mark
There are other materials that conduct/carry current.
What about carbon fibre for instance.
Remember-think outside the norm. Lets see if we can find solutions that fit in with known science-lets find the loopholes
It doesn't matter if you did or did not.  The wire isn't what's responsible for the magnetic field, the magnetic field is intrinsic to the moving charge, no matter how the charge is conveyed.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 12:24:20 PM

Hello MarkE,

I appreciate your pointing out the facts, yours is a dying breed, what I mean to say is, you and others possessing a solid understanding of the facts are the voice of reason, your kind keep places like this grounded.  In light of this, it is with some regret that I feel the need to remind you of the fact that I stated in my post that I have very little use and or interest in the facts.  In the last few years I have come to the realization that facts function in a similar manner to the inductance of a coil, namely they are quite literally the opposition to change.  It is not my desire to challenge the facts or laws.  I desire to do more than our present adherence allows.  I am of the opinion that new limits cannot be established when we acknowledge and defend the established limitation as dictated by the facts.  I recognize that it isn't considered as being wise to ignore the facts, to forget where we come from would be a grave error, however, in my own defense, to defend that which was/is the opinion of another, an idea collectively agreed on because no better explanation was to be found is a far greater crime than blazing your own trail. 

The ideas you suggest are governed by your perspective, and your understanding and or interpretation of the facts.  A total neutralization is not necessary for accomplishing that which I am after.  Total nullification may indeed be impossible, but to say so prior to contemplating and testing all possible scenarios is unbecoming of one who truly desires to know uphold and share what could be considered as scientific truths.  As I pointed out, my post was simply a thought experiment for entertainment purposes only....my entertainment.


Regards
You made certain assertions, and I offered correction.  You can challenge or ignore those corrections as you choose.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 19, 2015, 12:41:25 PM
It doesn't matter if you did or did not.  The wire isn't what's responsible for the magnetic field, the magnetic field is intrinsic to the moving charge, no matter how the charge is conveyed.

Exactly, and for Timman and others, nobody is stopping you from thinking outside of the box.  However, it's generally accepted that you do this at least with a sold frame of reference where you understand the currently accepted knowledge.  In other words you have a foundation underneath you.  It's like taking the example of Picasso and Andy Warhol.  Before they got into their own styles of abstract art they made conventional paintings - they had a mastery of the art of standard painting and drawing before they took it to a new level.

There is no point in talking about an "imaginary different type of wire" when the wire has nothing to do with it.  Like it or not, Nature is telling us that moving charges create a magnetic field.  You simply can't change that or change the "definition" of what a moving charge does.

Ridicule also does have a place in discourse within reasonable limits.  The guy who fakes his resume and claims he is a machinist with 15-years experience, then goes on the shop floor and destroys a $2500 piece of aluminium stock because he has no clue how to operate the CNC machine deserves some ridicule.  If somebody is a big faker about electronics and they talk a lot of BS then sometimes they deserve some ridicule also.  Look at the so-called "smart guys" or "knowitalls" - they also get ridiculed except it's for different reasons.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 19, 2015, 01:35:55 PM
Exactly, and for Timman and others, nobody is stopping you from thinking outside of the box.  However, it's generally accepted that you do this at least with a sold frame of reference where you understand the currently accepted knowledge.  In other words you have a foundation underneath you.  It's like taking the example of Picasso and Andy Warhol.  Before they got into their own styles of abstract art they made conventional paintings - they had a mastery of the art of standard painting and drawing before they took it to a new level.

There is no point in talking about an "imaginary different type of wire" when the wire has nothing to do with it.  Like it or not, Nature is telling us that moving charges create a magnetic field.  You simply can't change that or change the "definition" of what a moving charge does.

Ridicule also does have a place in discourse within reasonable limits.  The guy who fakes his resume and claims he is a machinist with 15-years experience, then goes on the shop floor and destroys a $2500 piece of aluminium stock because he has no clue how to operate the CNC machine deserves some ridicule.  If somebody is a big faker about electronics and they talk a lot of BS then sometimes they deserve some ridicule also.  Look at the so-called "smart guys" or "knowitalls" - they also get ridiculed except it's for different reasons.

MileHigh
Some times MH, the answer was apparent way back in the past, but at the time it ment nothing to you other than a problem fixed.
I will explain tomorrow night when I get  back home  to a keyboard I can see.
But for now, are you sure there is no conductor that current can travel through without a magnetic field being created around it-this is a question for you to Mark.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 01:50:24 PM

I choose to ignore the corrections.  I appreciate you giving me a choice. 


Regards
It wasn't my choice to give to you.  You're going to do what you want.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 01:58:59 PM

Greetings MileHigh,

The funny thing is like you and most here I am grounded, however, unlike most I found myself asking was why?  Why judge in stating "forgetting about the facts and reality"?  I ask because from my perspective, you are speaking from your perspective.  What facts, and whose reality are you referring to?  Your reality, the one most agree to because its the politically correct thing to do was given to us by one higher on the tree than we.  Lots of monkeys on that branch you occupy staring in screens banging senselessly at keyboards as you put it.  All thinking and obeying themselves into oblivion.  Big deal the majority feel the need to position themselves beside you on that branch, sharing your panorama, I am not impressed.  I climbed down out of the tree (highly recommended) and look up at you and the company you keep and am humbled. 

Nothing changes if we keep doing things the way they are expected, no advance can be made from a zone of real comfort.  Many are comfortable now, and from their positions of authority they can shoot down any concept which they deem is not worthy of anyone's time.  I find that fascinating, because it is an expression of power, power over ones peers.  As a keeper of the law these individuals wield absolute authority, and unfortunately this kind of power corrupts.  When the facts as they are agreed upon can be used as a mechanism for suppressing the creativity of those who do not know the laws, does this constitute a form of abuse of authority?

This place is about finding solutions.  The ultimate form of those solutions may not conform to the established.  The free thinkers who rebel against the established and run intuitively towards their desire are on equal footing with those who uphold the law.  Unity is seen when the two unite, not when the one dominates the other.

But what do I know.....I'm just a monkey, alone,  keyboard in hand staring up into a tree filled with monkeys banging away at keyboards and staring into screens flashing the words..obey.....sleep...

Sir I mean you no disrespect, I simply ask that you allow those who don't care for that which you care about the room they need to express themselves and their ideas to the fullest.  It's clear that they have no choice in the manner when it comes to you expressing yourself and your ideas, an elbow in the eye has that effect.  Give them the benefit of the doubt, they can refer to text when the desire arises in them to know your view, and they know you are more than willing to guide them, they need only ask.


Regards
Express an idea in a public place and it's reasonable to expect comment.  After all if one doesn't want comment one can express express their thoughts to a private group, or just keep them to themselves. 

I don't see a reason for objection if anyone offers a declaration of fact as a premise for their train of thought and someone else points out that the premise is factually wrong.  There are at least a couple of amenable solutions:  Acknowledge that the premise is wrong and state that it is intended for hypothetical consideration as if it were not wrong, correct the premise, or defend the premise as correct.  For example: "If the moon were made of bleu cheese would burgers taste better in space?" may sound silly but it doesn't find itself at direct odds with an idea such as:  "Because the moon is made of bleu cheese, burgers taste better in space."  And one could always argue something like:  "The moon is really made of bleu cheese because ...  provides reliable evidence that it is."
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 19, 2015, 02:09:23 PM
What is the simplest inductor?  The answer is a short length of straight wire.
Strangely the same length of wire has less inductance when coiled in a high pitch helix than a straight wire or a wire coiled in a low pitch helix.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 19, 2015, 02:14:45 PM
So where there is current flow there is a magnetic field regardless of what carries that current?
Yes, when you have a current flow in a single conductor.

Mark-What if there was a conductor that can carry current, but no magnetic field is produced around that conductor
If that would happen around a single conductor then it would be a revolution in physics.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull on January 19, 2015, 02:18:42 PM
Oh, by the way-who said electrons are the only charge carriers.
Nobody
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 19, 2015, 03:42:13 PM
TinMan
yes perhaps there are other options... or methods to manifest useful Charge ,seems perhaps our planet with its spinning and "standing" components may hold some surprises or clues.
a Stone from Sweden rings a bell, and a friend of OURS Bill Barbat has some thoughts on this [and Patents] too, Oxide coatings and Graphene
here are some basic raw materials [from Johan ]

http://www.galleries.com/minerals/property/electric.htm

Erfinder
do not go Too far out the exit, keep an ear to the ground
 
  we have never been this way before, The common mans ability to "search and discover"
has never had such a resource, EVER....
and we have Never been able to see the things which we can see now at the Nano level
and OLD fellows like William Barbat are exploring and not listening to the Din from the gallery.

here we have many eyes to behold and assist in that journey off the path, I suspect even
the fellows that "attempt" to keep it clean will eventually have to yield to the flow.

have a good day.
Chet


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 04:16:15 PM

Abuse of authority is abuse of authority.  Those who present "ideas" which have no "scientifically accepted" basis are shot on the spot.
People who promote concepts that have been shown to be wrong over and over again get informed of the fact.  What is the problem with that? 
Quote
Guilty until they memorize and quote the law or laws whose existence they denied.  This public admission of guilt must be done before a jury of their peers, individuals who have been groomed through direct or indirect association with these authorities.  It's unfortunate that creativity is only accepted when the creative individual is walking the line, has demonstrated his/her abilities as a maverick in known and accepted territory.
Ignorance is just ignorance.  Creativity is putting things together in unusual ways.  If those things are supposed to be entirely imaginary and fantastical, then great: that's the work of many artists.  If those things are supposed to function somehow in the real world, their chances of succeeding are a whole lot better if they are not premised on things that have been shown to be wrong many times.
Quote

Let them do what they want.  What harm could come of it?  You may say that you let them do what they want, that they will do what they want anyway, but then when you look back at the debates you see what I see....the idea being presented was completely overturned, and the presenter burned alive.
No one can stop someone else from pursuing what they want.  If the pursuit consists of trying to convince people that up means blue then there should be no surprise that others challenge such odd ideas.
Quote
  Their case was never heard, was never going to be heard, it would have been kinder to say to the individual, "Get, your kind ain't welcome here".
Except that is not true.  There are lots of people here who have pursued one idea or another that is highly improbable where they did not claim the idea was right they just wanted some technical help, and that technical help has been offered.  It is where someone makes claims without evidence, or with already highly refuting evidence that they find themselves in arguments they struggle with.  Why?  Because they don't have evidence.
Quote

What has to be done is obvious but the majority don't want to do it.  It's clear that if you want to be creative, really creative and free from the bonds, you can't do it here.  There's no room for that kind of thing here.  So why do folks stick around presenting their case, exposing their cheeks to the lash?  Peer review is a funny thing, a touchy subject, the majority enter this place assuming that they are in the company of like minded individuals, sadly they are mistaken, places like this is where you bring your idea to be consumed by the flame.[/qutoe]What do you mean by "like minded"?  Do you mean curious?  Then there is lots of information offered here to the curious.  Do you mean people who want to experiment?  Again there is lots of help that people get here.  But if you mean want to pretend that the world behaves entirely differently than we have strong reason to believe for little more reason than they would like it to be that way, and there are plenty of people here who try with various degrees of patience and gentleness to point out what a lot of very creative, very smart and very dedicated people have spent countless hours amassing as pretty damned reliable knowledge.
Quote
  A burnt offering to who knows what, the poor creative individual sits there from the other side of the screen he/she watches the law as if it were fire, consume their hopes and dreams, converting them into smoke and ash.
No amount of hope is going to make an imaginary security box in Amsterdam real.
Quote
   The act deadens the senses, and if practiced often enough, leads to an almost total disconnection from ones own creative capacity. 

If the moon were made of bleu cheese and mining operation was setup on the moon, and that mining operation was accompanied by a processing plant, if one were to eat at joes, a joint just outside of the processing plant within the artificial atmosphere, tainted with the duft of processed bleu, and assuming good ole bleu is your love.....yeah I am pretty sure that bleu cheese burger would be mighty fine....probably the solar system.....
And that's a fine speculation to offer, pitched as it is on a wild premise, but not a premise that is asserted as true.
Quote

Funny how this kind of thing is allowed, but playful discussions on subjects that mean things to those reading aren't.  Magnet Myths and Misconceptions is the subject, and I am guilty of going off topic.  I am now proceeding to the EXIT.
One might hope that the point of a topic like this is to reduce misconceptions, not invent new ones.  Interpretations vary.
Quote



Regards
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 19, 2015, 05:58:45 PM
Mark E
quote
No amount of hope is going to make an imaginary security box in Amsterdam real.
------------------------------------------------
please elaborate  ?


thx
Chet
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 06:34:06 PM
Mark E
quote
No amount of hope is going to make an imaginary security box in Amsterdam real.
------------------------------------------------
please elaborate  ?


thx
Chet
Nature doesn't give a hoot as to what anyone hopes. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 19, 2015, 07:09:27 PM



   Look toward some experiments on a grand scale. The Sun is doing a huge amount when
it comes to magnetism and I would assume that even though the conditions are extreme
the basic principles work similar to here on Earth.
               John.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 19, 2015, 07:13:28 PM
Mark E
its your quote...?
Amsterdam and Hope ??,sorry I don't follow your other threads .


whatchamean  ??
thx


Chet
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 19, 2015, 10:47:51 PM
Mark E
its your quote...?
Amsterdam and Hope ??,sorry I don't follow your other threads .


whatchamean  ??
thx


Chet
Yes it is.  It means that no amount of wishing changes the way that nature behaves.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 03:02:45 AM
Yes it is.  It means that no amount of wishing changes the way that nature behaves.
And believing that man knows natures every motion is a misconception..
To believe that the charge itself is what creates the magnetic field is an incorrect assumption. It is the charge carriers motion that determonds the magnetic field around a conductive path-not the charge itself .if there were no charge carriers, there would be no charge.

I wonder just how many here have done the compass, current through a wire test with other materials other than metalic conductors.

I wonder why back in the days of old, the radio in my prized muscle car stop picking up ignition noise when I swaped out the old wire sparkplug leads for high performance silicon leads.

I wonder why my clamp on current meter will read AC current going through a copper power cable, but wont read didley sqat if I try to read the same AC current through a carbon fibre power lead.

I wonder if ions carry current in the same manner as electrons do?-I wonder if the motion between the two is the same when carrying a current?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 20, 2015, 03:13:53 AM
I have been sitting by watching, and learning, but, I have a question.

I have seen it said here that the movement of electrons through a conductor is what creates the magnetic field...right?

I am not going to argue, at this point, that the two do not go hand in hand....but...
What if, applying current creates that magnetic field AND it is the magnetic field that allows the flow of electrons?  This would also explain
why we do not appear to see one without the other.

Could this be tested experimentally?  I do not know of any way to get rid of the magnetic field to see if the current still flows.  I suppose I am wondering if it is sort of a chicken and the egg type of thing.  Do we really KNOW that the current flow creates the field?  Or, might not the field be created which allows electron flow?

Very possibly a stupid question but...I had to ask it.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 03:48:19 AM
And believing that man knows natures every motion is a misconception..
To believe that the charge itself is what creates the magnetic field is an incorrect assumption. It is the charge carriers motion that determonds the magnetic field around a conductive path-not the charge itself .if there were no charge carriers, there would be no charge.

I wonder just how many here have done the compass, current through a wire test with other materials other than metalic conductors.

Have you ever done so with surprising results?

Quote

I wonder why back in the days of old, the radio in my prized muscle car stop picking up ignition noise when I swaped out the old wire sparkplug leads for high performance silicon leads.

http://www.auroraelectronics.com/Understanding%20Spark%20Plug%20Wires.htm

Quote
I wonder why my clamp on current meter will read AC current going through a copper power cable, but wont read didley sqat if I try to read the same AC current through a carbon fibre power lead.

Did the carbon have the same AC current flowing? (at least based on resistance/applied voltage calculations)?

If so, was it a carbon mono-filament?  If not, it may have been acting as individual twisted strands.

Quote
I wonder if ions carry current in the same manner as electrons do?-I wonder if the motion between the two is the same when carrying a current?.

Ions can carry current.  A beam of protons is deflected in a direction opposite to that of a beam of electrons, so I suspect that a flow of positive ions would produce a magnetic field opposite to that of electrons flowing in the same direction.

Possibly MarkE can provide a better answer...

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 04:02:27 AM



Ions can carry current.  A beam of protons is deflected in a direction opposite to that of a beam of electrons, so I suspect that a flow of positive ions would produce a magnetic field opposite to that of electrons flowing in the same direction.

Possibly MarkE can provide a better answer...

PW
[/quote]
Jackpot PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 04:10:29 AM


Ions can carry current.  A beam of protons is deflected in a direction opposite to that of a beam of electrons, so I suspect that a flow of positive ions would produce a magnetic field opposite to that of electrons flowing in the same direction.

Possibly MarkE can provide a better answer...

PW

Jackpot PW

Jackpot?

Care to explain that a bit?

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 04:21:09 AM
I never specified a wire Mark
There are other materials that conduct/carry current.

Tinman,

Using the word "carry" could be interpreted to mean "transport".

There are lots of ways to transport charges without creating a magnetic field during "transport".

But I consider that quite different than to "conduct".

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 04:25:45 AM
And believing that man knows natures every motion is a misconception..
Outside of some religion where is such a claim made?
Quote

To believe that the charge itself is what creates the magnetic field is an incorrect assumption.
Moving charge and magnetic fields are to this day inseparable behaviors.
Quote
It is the charge carriers motion that determonds the magnetic field around a conductive path-not the charge itself .if there were no charge carriers, there would be no charge.
Have you ever seen a LASER?  Where are the charge carriers in the LASER beam?
Quote

I wonder just how many here have done the compass, current through a wire test with other materials other than metalic conductors.
Why would that matter?
Quote

I wonder why back in the days of old, the radio in my prized muscle car stop picking up ignition noise when I swaped out the old wire sparkplug leads for high performance silicon leads.
I am guessing it may well not be the reason that you think.
Quote

I wonder why my clamp on current meter will read AC current going through a copper power cable, but wont read didley sqat if I try to read the same AC current through a carbon fibre power lead.
That's funny, because mine doesn't care.
Quote

I wonder if ions carry current in the same manner as electrons do?-I wonder if the motion between the two is the same when carrying a current?.
Well, that all depends on your definition of "same manner" is.  From an electromagnetic standpoint, it's the motion of charge that matters.  Think about the LASER question.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 04:31:16 AM


Ions can carry current.  A beam of protons is deflected in a direction opposite to that of a beam of electrons, so I suspect that a flow of positive ions would produce a magnetic field opposite to that of electrons flowing in the same direction.

Possibly MarkE can provide a better answer...

PW

Jackpot PW
Magnetically, moving charge is moving charge.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 06:48:28 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_conductor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_ion_conductor

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 11:16:49 AM
If that would happen around a single conductor then it would be a revolution in physics.
No,the physics already explains how it can be done through chemistry.

We dont have an energy crisis-we have a scientific crisis.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 11:30:16 AM
No,the physics already explains how it can be done through chemistry.

We dont have an energy crisis-we have a scientific crisis.
Really?  Do you think you have an example of a net charge flux versus time without a magnetic field surrounding that charge flux?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 11:38:37 AM
Tinman:




MileHigh
Quote
What is the basis for you posing that question?  Any wire that has current flowing through it will have a magnetic field around it.  In fact there is even a magnetic field inside the wire.  That leads into a related question.  What is the simplest inductor?  The answer is a short length of straight wire.
I never said a wire,i said a conductor. You do know there are other materials that can conduct/carry current other than wire-dont you.

Quote
It makes me think of when people post things like, "I tested my coils with copper magnet wire and now I am going to test them with iron wire."  The participants in the thread will wait for the results of the test.  If you ignore the slightly different resistances of the two wires, then there is no possible difference between a coil made with copper wire and coil made with iron wire.
This is totally incorrect,and i know this for fact. This is the difference between those that read books,and those that actually test this very situation with actual devices. Here is a result of this very situation between iron wire and copper wire. Two identical air core coils wound,one with soft iron tie wire(plastic coated),and one with copper wire. Both wires have exact same OD,and same number of turns. Now which do you suppose created the strongest magnetic field when supplied with the same amount of power?-and im talking180%+ stronger.

Quote
It's the same frustration that I couldn't really give a rat's ass about any more.  What does it take to become a master machinist?  Perhaps three or four years of school and then three or four years of apprenticeship?  Do you think a Jow Blow off the street can just watch a few YouTube clips and then start working in a factory machining aircraft engine parts?  Why in God's name do people think they can buy a scope and a multimeter and then research free energy machines?  You saw Chris fall flat on his face because he couldn't solve a circuit that consisted of one lousy component.  Now he has his own thread to teach people how to build allegedly over unity transformers.

Might i remind you that this lousy truck driver had to correct you on your thinking that 1 coil would have more pull force for the same amount of P/in than two coils(one each side of the magnet)would. This was a no brainer,and you got it wrong.
Even the best slip up some times MH,so give the less experianced a little breathing room.

This is where bench time come into play MH.
Dont discredit those that could one day teach you something.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 11:42:37 AM
Really?  Do you think you have an example of a net charge flux versus time without a magnetic field surrounding that charge flux?
Not sure about your chinese there Mark???
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 11:50:11 AM
I never said a wire,i said a conductor. You do know there are other materials that can conduct/carry current other than wire-dont you.
This is totally incorrect,and i know this for fact. This is the difference between those that read books,and those that actually test this very situation with actual devices. Here is a result of this very situation between iron wire and copper wire. Two identical air core coils wound,one with soft iron tie wire(plastic coated),and one with copper wire. Both wires have exact same OD,and same number of turns. Now which do you suppose created the strongest magnetic field when supplied with the same amount of power?-and im talking180%+ stronger.
You are right about that and MH was mistaken.
Quote

Might i remind you that this lousy truck driver had to correct you on your thinking that 1 coil would have more pull force for the same amount of P/in than two coils(one each side of the magnet)would. This was a no brainer,and you got it wrong.
Even the best slip up some times MH,so give the less experianced a little breathing room.
Facts always rule the day.
Quote

This is where bench time come into play MH.
Dont discredit those that could one day teach you something.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 11:54:02 AM
Some times MH, the answer was apparent way back in the past, but at the time it ment nothing to you other than a problem fixed.
I will explain tomorrow night when I get  back home  to a keyboard I can see.
But for now, are you sure there is no conductor that current can travel through without a magnetic field being created around it-this is a question for you to Mark.

Tinman,

I, for one, am still waiting for the your explanation...

PW

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 12:08:41 PM
Not sure about your chinese there Mark???
The thread as I have followed it:
Quote
TINMAN:      Mark-What if there was a conductor that can carry current, but no magnetic field is produced around that conductor

Quote
NOBULL:      If that would happen around a single conductor then it would be a revolution in physics.

Quote
TINMAN:      No,the physics already explains how it can be done through chemistry.

We dont have an energy crisis-we have a scientific crisis.

Quote
MARKE:      Really?  Do you think you have an example of a net charge flux versus time without a magnetic field surrounding that charge flux?

Quote
TINMAN:      Not sure about your chinese there Mark???

If the relationship of charge to space and time is changing there is a magnetic field.  In simpler terms:  If charge is moving there is a magnetic field.  In even simpler terms:  If there is an apparent electric current, there is a magnetic field.  NOBULL's comment about the single conductor is tantamount to saying the same thing.  When one has a coaxial cable where the center conductor passes current in one direction and the outer condutor passes the return current in the other, then the net current penetrating any surface exterior to the cable is zero and the net magnetic field exterior to the coaxial cable is zero.  If we made a "salt water coax" consisting of an inner PVC pipe filled with salt water, and an outer pipe of any kind filled with salt water then we would have a coaxial cable emulation.  If we drained the outer pipe then we would see the magnetic field associated with any current passed through the water of the inner pipe no matter what the outer pipe is made of.  If the outer pipe were a very thick iron pipe then the magnetic leakage from the field surrounding the salt water in the inner pipe would be small.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 12:16:58 PM
Tinman,

I, for one, am still waiting for the your explanation...

PW
PW&Mark

I would like you to think about how electric current is carried through an ionic conductor of different solutions. Lets switch to real current flow(electron flow) here,and leave conventional current flow out of it. We refer to wikipedia here(and if this isnt an accurate description ,then now is the time to say something) Quote: An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma.

An electric current is carried by electron's,and the electron flow is from negative to positive.Useing say a copper wire ,this flow of current produces a magnetic field around that wire.
Now if we use ion's to carry that current by way of an ionic conductor,the ion flow is opposite to that of the electron flow,and although the polarity is the same through the ionic conductor,the opposite flow of ions creates a magnetic field around that conductor that is opposite to that of the one created by electron flow. The down side is that because of the higher resistance of the ionic conductor,a higher power level must be used to obtain a decent amount of current through that conductor.

If we make a K/CL mix of the right ratio,we can ballance that flow of current between the ion carriers and electron carriers. Once this ballance is correct,then the net magnetic field around the conductor is 0.

Another problem associated with this when useing a DC current is of course electrolysis. But this problem is omited when useing AC current.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 12:25:00 PM
PW&Mark

I would like you to think about how electric current is carried through an ionic conductor of different solutions. Lets switch to real current flow(electron flow) here,and leave conventional current flow out of it. We refer to wikipedia here(and if this isnt an accurate description ,then now is the time to say something) Quote: An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma.

An electric current is carried by electron's,and the electron flow is from negative to positive.Useing say a copper wire ,this flow of current produces a magnetic field around that wire.
Now if we use ion's to carry that current by way of an ionic conductor,the ion flow is opposite to that of the electron flow,and although the polarity is the same through the ionic conductor,the opposite flow of ions creates a magnetic field around that conductor that is opposite to that of the one created by electron flow. The down side is that because of the higher resistance of the ionic conductor,a higher power level must be used to obtain a decent amount of current through that conductor.

If we make a K/CL mix of the right ratio,we can ballance that flow of current between the ion carriers and electron carriers. Once this ballance is correct,then the net magnetic field around the conductor is 0.
Unless you propose to make the two coaxial to each other, you are wrong.  The magnetic field in a plane is zero only if the net current penetrating that plane is zero.  You can cook up any chemistry that you want and if the net result is current flowing between a cathode and an anode then you have a magnetic field surrounding that current.
Quote

Another problem associated with this when useing a DC current is of course electrolysis. But this problem is omited when useing AC current.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 12:34:26 PM
Tinman:

Quote
Now if we use ion's to carry that current by way of an ionic conductor,the ion flow is opposite to that of the electron flow,and although the polarity is the same through the ionic conductor,the opposite flow of ions creates a magnetic field around that conductor that is opposite to that of the one created by electron flow.

Nope, I an assuming that you are not thinking this through.  If electron current flows say from left to right, then as you sate above positive ion current then flows from right to left.

Both flows will produce the same magnetic field, not opposite magnetic fields.  Indeed, nobody is perfect.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 12:36:44 PM
Unless you propose to make the two coaxial to each other, you are wrong.  The magnetic field in a plane is zero only if the net current penetrating that plane is zero.  You can cook up any chemistry that you want and if the net result is current flowing between a cathode and an anode then you have a magnetic field surrounding that current.
Lol
see ya saterday night. ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 12:38:14 PM
Tinman:

Nope, I an assuming that you are not thinking this through.  If electron current flows say from left to right, then as you sate above positive ion current then flows from right to left.

Both flows will produce the same magnetic field, not opposite magnetic fields.  Indeed, nobody is perfect.

MileHigh
Books or bench time MH?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 12:50:01 PM
Tinman:

Nope, I an assuming that you are not thinking this through.  If electron current flows say from left to right, then as you sate above positive ion current then flows from right to left.

Both flows will produce the same magnetic field, not opposite magnetic fields.  Indeed, nobody is perfect.

MileHigh
Quote PW.
Ions can carry current.  A beam of protons is deflected in a direction opposite to that of a beam of electrons, so I suspect that a flow of positive ions would produce a magnetic field opposite to that of electrons flowing in the same direction.

This is correct.
Although it may be the charge that gives rise to the magnetic field,it is the motion of the charge carriers that determond the orientation of that magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 12:53:13 PM
Lol
see ya saterday night. ;)
Maybe I will take pictures by then with a compass and using:  an isolated conductor (really one half of a loop), compared to a coax.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 12:55:21 PM
Quote PW.
Ions can carry current.  A beam of protons is deflected in a direction opposite to that of a beam of electrons, so I suspect that a flow of positive ions would produce a magnetic field opposite to that of electrons flowing in the same direction.

This is correct.
Although it may be the charge that gives rise to the magnetic field,it is the motion of the charge carriers that determond the orientation of that magnetic field.
Static charge does not give rise to a magnetic field.  Moving charge gives rise to a magnetic field.  The direction that the charge moves determines the direction that the magnetic field circulates.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 01:07:01 PM
Tinman:

Quote
This is totally incorrect,and i know this for fact. This is the difference between those that read books,and those that actually test this very situation with actual devices. Here is a result of this very situation between iron wire and copper wire. Two identical air core coils wound,one with soft iron tie wire(plastic coated),and one with copper wire. Both wires have exact same OD,and same number of turns. Now which do you suppose created the strongest magnetic field when supplied with the same amount of power?-and im talking180%+ stronger.

One more time, it's not as simple as you think.

For starters, using power as the metric here is absolutely wrong.  And you have done it twice in your recent postings.  The power has no direct affect on this experiment.  The resistive losses in the wire are a secondary effect and are meaningless.  The only metric that is relevant to this experiment and the intention behind it it the amount of current flow.

So, this is arguably a mistake on your part because "you do not read books."  Anybody that has learnt about magnetism would pick up on this issue right away.  Chances are you have been "wrong thinking" about examples like this for years.  In fact a month or two ago Luc did solenoid tests where he was comparing his home made solenoid with a commercial solenoid to measure the pulling force.  I tried dropping hints to him and all the participants in the tread many times about this issue.  This issue is that he was chasing after the wrong variable the whole time, assuming that he was supposed to be doing "pure research" - but nobody got it.  For a couple of weeks he was looking at the wrong data.

Now we are going to move onto the issue at hand - my failure to recognize that there would be a difference in the strength of magnetic field generated by the two different types of wire.

As Mark explained to me, I forgot to account for the increased permeability of the iron wire.  So the iron wire would store some of the magnetic energy inside the wire itself.  With more magnetic energy stored in the wire, there is less magnetic energy stored outside of the wire and hence a weaker magnetic field generated by the iron coil.  This difference in wire types would mean that the iron coil should also have a slightly higher inductance.

Okay, so now that I see where my mistake was, I get it.

Now, let's look at your statement in more detail.

You did the experiment on the bench.  The conclusion was "a copper-wire coil produces a stronger magnetic field than an iron-wire coil."  I am going to assume that other experimenters have observed this also, I have read it before.

Here is the problem:  You could only report your observation, but you didn't know why.  That's a total fail.  Without knowing why you are just flying blind.  In some ways it's even a worse mistake than mine.   And here is the reason why:  Putting the differences in the permeability of the two different types of wire aside for a moment, you should be thinking that the strength of the magnetic field produced by the coil is proportional to the ampere-turns of the coil.   So you have the same ampere turns between the two coils, and yet you observe different magnetic field strengths between the two coils.  There is something ostensibly WRONG there, it "doesn't make sense."  If you are working on the bench, you should recognize that there is a "problem."  A problem is no good, and it must be investigated.  But there is no investigation by the typical forum experimenter about this unexplained discrepancy between theory and observation - and that is a TOTAL FAIL.  The only thing they can do is say the two wires are different but they can't explain it but much worse is they don't even try to explain it.  I doubt that you ever tried to explain it.

I have never done these types of experiments because I had no reason to do them.  However, if I did do the experiment and observed a difference in the magnetic field strengths when they were "supposed" to be the same - that would have stopped me cold in my tracks.   It might have taken me five minutes to figure it out.  It might have taken me twenty minutes, it might have even taken me a whole day - but I would have figured it out one way or the other.

There is an important lesson in this and I hope that you and others take it very seriously.  There is no "my experiment trumps what you read in your egghead books."  That is total bullshit.  The reality is the experiment is in 100% agreement with what is in the books.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 01:17:47 PM
Quote PW.
Ions can carry current.  A beam of protons is deflected in a direction opposite to that of a beam of electrons, so I suspect that a flow of positive ions would produce a magnetic field opposite to that of electrons flowing in the same direction.

This is correct.
Although it may be the charge that gives rise to the magnetic field,it is the motion of the charge carriers that determond the orientation of that magnetic field.

Books.  And from your quote above you are agreeing with what I said and contradicting yourself with respect to your own previous statement.  So can I assume that your second statement holds and you agree with me?

Beyond that, if you actually have to go to the bench to figure this very basic stuff out, then you have a problem.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2015, 02:06:11 PM
Iron wire not only has higher permeability than copper wire, but also it has greater _resistance_. So if you have the same diameter wire, and you make two coils of the same dimensions and turn count, the iron one will have greater total DC resistance. So if you apply the same _voltage_ to the coils, say from your voltage-regulated bench supply, you will have less _current_ flowing in the iron coil. This means less power, of course, and also less magnetic field, because the field depends on ampere-turns, everything else being equal.
So since the turns are equal, one needs to supply more DC voltage to the iron core coil so that the _current_ matches the current at which the copper core coil was tested. Same amp-turns needs _more_ power in the iron coil. Ergo, same power means _fewer_ amp-turns in the iron coil, meaning less total magnetic field. This, on top of the permeability effect.



(What is the permeability of _magnetized_ iron carrying current?   ;)   )

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 20, 2015, 02:12:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 02:17:03 PM
Tinman:

 

MileHigh
Quote
You did the experiment on the bench.  The conclusion was "a copper-wire coil produces a stronger magnetic field than an iron-wire coil
."

How ever did you come up with that MH?.Where in my post did i say that the copper wire coil produced a stronger magnetic field?.
Quote: Now which do you suppose created the strongest magnetic field when supplied with the same amount of power?-
How on earth did you come up with a conclusion(which is incorrect by the way)from my statement>?

Quote
Here is the problem:  You could only report your observation, but you didn't know why.  That's a total fail.
A total fail MH is saying that there was a conclusion to my test,when it was insted a question directed at you ::)

 
Quote
Without knowing why you are just flying blind.  In some ways it's even a worse mistake than mine.

I made no mistake MH,you did in some how deciding that i gave a conclusion to my test.

Quote
And here is the reason why:  Putting the differences in the permeability of the two different types of wire aside for a moment, you should be thinking that the strength of the magnetic field produced by the coil is proportional to the ampere-turns of the coil.   So you have the same ampere turns between the two coils, and yet you observe different magnetic field strengths between the two coils.  There is something ostensibly WRONG there, it "doesn't make sense
There is nothing wrong there. Do you think that the soft iron wire has the same resistive value as the copper wire for the same gauge of wire?. And do you think then that the ampere turns value remains the same? Did you miss the part where i said-Quote: when supplied with the same amount of power.

Quote
For starters, using power as the metric here is absolutely wrong.  And you have done it twice in your recent postings.  The power has no direct affect on this experiment.


Have you gone completely nut's MH>? To check the difference in magnetic field strength of two coils useing two different types of wire to obtain data that shows the best performer for the same P/in. As we are useing DC,then power is an accurate description.

Quote
So, this is arguably a mistake on your part because "you do not read books
Nope,it was your mistake because you didnt read the post correctly.

Quote
The resistive losses in the wire are a secondary effect and are meaningless.  The only metric that is relevant to this experiment and the intention behind it it the amount of current flow.
No again.
It about creating a stronger magnetic field for the same P/in

Quote
Anybody that has learnt about magnetism would pick up on this issue right away.  Chances are you have been "wrong thinking" about examples like this for years
And no
My test are correct-your asumptions are wrong.

Quote
In fact a month or two ago Luc did solenoid tests where he was comparing his home made solenoid with a commercial solenoid to measure the pulling force.  I tried dropping hints to him and all the participants in the tread many times about this issue.  This issue is that he was chasing after the wrong variable the whole time, assuming that he was supposed to be doing "pure research" - but nobody got it.  For a couple of weeks he was looking at the wrong data.
Nothing to do with me.

Quote
As Mark explained to me, I forgot to account for the increased permeability of the iron wire.  So the iron wire would store some of the magnetic energy inside the wire itself.  With more magnetic energy stored in the wire, there is less magnetic energy stored outside of the wire and hence a weaker magnetic field generated by the iron coil.

There you go,the difference between the bench and book's. The soft iron wire had more pull force on my piece of key steel than the copper wire coil did. It was the soft iron wire coil that had near 180% more pull force than the copper wire coil for the same P/in.

Quote
If you are working on the bench, you should recognize that there is a "problem."  A problem is no good, and it must be investigated.
The problem MH here is that some how you came to a conclusion in my test,that was made from a question-and was also incorrect.

Quote
There is an important lesson in this and I hope that you and others take it very seriously.  There is no "my experiment trumps what you read in your egghead books."  That is total bullshit.  The reality is the experiment is in 100% agreement with what is in the books.

I am trying to work out how you think my experiment was wrong before i gave the results-which i have now posted above in the comments.
This is becoming a habbit here on this thread-guys replacing my statements with things i never said-just like you have done here MH.

I will stick to my bench MH,and see the true results right there in front of me-->you keep to your books.
My respect remains for you MH,but you have to stop turning things i say!like this! quote: -Now which do you suppose created the strongest magnetic field when supplied with the same amount of power?-, into this-Quote: The conclusion was "a copper-wire coil produces a stronger magnetic field than an iron-wire coil.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 02:31:38 PM
   



(What is the permeability of _magnetized_ iron carrying current?   ;)   )
Quote
Iron wire not only has higher permeability than copper wire, but also it has greater _resistance_. So if you have the same diameter wire, and you make two coils of the same dimensions and turn count, the iron one will have greater total DC resistance.
Exactly TK.

Quote
So if you apply the same _voltage_ to the coils, say from your voltage-regulated bench supply, you will have less _current_ flowing in the iron coil. This means less power, of course, and also less magnetic field, because the field depends on ampere-turns, everything else being equal
.
The very reason i used the term power  in-the same amount of power  was supplied to the two coils during my test.


Quote
So since the turns are equal, one needs to supply more DC voltage to the iron core coil so that the _current_ matches the current at which the copper core coil was tested. Same amp-turns needs _more_ power in the iron coil.
Indeed.

Quote
Ergo, same power means _fewer_ amp-turns in the iron coil, meaning less total magnetic field. This, on top of the permeability effect.
I went higher in voltage until the P/in was the same as that of the copper coil.
But my test showed a much stronger magnetic pull force for the same P/in from the soft iron wire coil.-This is opposite to what your saying TK?. I believe the reason for this is because the field is much more concentrated around the iron coil. The field around the copper coil may well have been much larger in size-this i didnt check.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 02:37:00 PM
Iron wire not only has higher permeability than copper wire, but also it has greater _resistance_. So if you have the same diameter wire, and you make two coils of the same dimensions and turn count, the iron one will have greater total DC resistance. So if you apply the same _voltage_ to the coils, say from your voltage-regulated bench supply, you will have less _current_ flowing in the iron coil. This means less power, of course, and also less magnetic field, because the field depends on ampere-turns, everything else being equal.
So since the turns are equal, one needs to supply more DC voltage to the iron core coil so that the _current_ matches the current at which the copper core coil was tested. Same amp-turns needs _more_ power in the iron coil. Ergo, same power means _fewer_ amp-turns in the iron coil, meaning less total magnetic field. This, on top of the permeability effect.



(What is the permeability of _magnetized_ iron carrying current?   ;)   )
But the gradient at the end of the magnet should be much higher on an air core because even with fewer A*T, the flux curls much more severely to the iron wire with its high permeability.  So lifting strength of the magnet picking up a piece of soft iron should be much higher than copper wire on an air core.  But test it for strength using a soft iron solenoid plunger in the middle and the results will be very much as you describe.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Exactly TK.
.
The very reason i used the term power  in-the same amount of power  was supplied to the two coils during my test.

Indeed.
I went higher in voltage until the P/in was the same as that of the copper coil.
But my test showed a much stronger magnetic pull force for the same P/in from the soft iron wire coil.-This is opposite to what your saying TK?. I believe the reason for this is because the field is much more concentrated around the iron coil. The field around the copper coil may well have been much larger in size-this i didnt check.
It's the curl in the field at the end of your coil that is sharper and that is giving the greater lifting force on soft iron near the pole.  Now, think about what you are observing in your test:

You have lower current, but higher permeability.  So the magnet as a whole has less field at TK says, but it folds over more tightly at the end.  Do these observations support your idea of magnetic charges, the conventional view, both, or neither?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 03:27:31 PM
Tinman:

Okay, for starters, one thing that you have to realize is that experimentally you have an "advantage."  You do the experiment, you see it in front of your own eyes, you try different things, and it all seems pretty clear to you.  Then you give us a few sentences that are typically just results and the barest of any description at all.  Realistically, there are going to be limitations in what you get in terms of feedback and in my head I have to "invent" the setup and the details of what I _think_ might be going on and you can see all the pitfalls that happen on both sides because of that.

If in the future you want to discuss another experiment and explore the theme of "books vs. bench" then the much better way to do that would be to make a good video clip of it.  And I have to fire a warning shot across the bow here.  No verbal description of your circuit.  If you are not willing to make a schematic for tests that involve some kind of circuit then forget it.  You probably have some old clips on your channel where you do a verbal run-down describing 10 to 15 connections and it just doesn't fly.

I read Mark's comments about the pull force and the possible increased curl giving you a higher gradient close to the poles.  That might mean that there is a stronger pulling force only in close proximity to the poles.  It might mean that the attraction force dies off very quickly with distance for the "stronger" coil and for the "weaker" coil the attraction force extends out much further.  We have zero data so it's all an unknown.

Okay now to move on to the "misunderstanding" or whatever you want to call it.

I was basing my entire train of thought on this quote below:

Quote
This is totally incorrect,and i know this for fact. This is the difference between those that read books,and those that actually test this very situation with actual devices. Here is a result of this very situation between iron wire and copper wire. Two identical air core coils wound,one with soft iron tie wire(plastic coated),and one with copper wire. Both wires have exact same OD,and same number of turns. Now which do you suppose created the strongest magnetic field when supplied with the same amount of power?-and im talking180%+ stronger.

When you stated "180% stronger" I took that to mean for the copper coil.  Also, why didn't you mention the resistance?  I will be honest with you and state that I was assuming that the difference in resistance between the copper and iron wire was very minimal.  I honestly don't know what the difference is.  If the difference was very minimal, then I could ignore your incorrect reference to power dissipation, and operate with the assumption that the current was approximately the same, within perhaps two or three percent.  So if the current is approximately the same, and the difference in magnetic field strength was 180% greater for one of them, then your reference to power could be ignored.

Note also that we have no idea how you measured the magnetic field strength, I don't think you described it.  In the entire context of this discussion I have to make a ton of assumptions because all that I have from you are a few sentences.

Then it came as a surprise that it's the iron coil with the stronger magnetic field when I thought it would be the copper coil.   Then Mark raised the issue of curl/gradient vs. distance which I honestly hadn't thought about but I can see with 20-20 hindsight is also very important.

Here is the real thing I would like to get across to you:

If the currents in the two coils are significantly different, then the whole test is in a sense BS.  Yes, I am using strong terms.  It's because if you are comparing how two coils of the same geometry will produce a magnetic field, then you want to have the two coils have the same current going through them.  This is something you should know and you should have set up your experiment like this.  Ampere-turns rules and resistance is just a nuisance in this case.

It's like you are saying this to us:  I have two identical copper coils driven from the same voltage source.  The first coil is in series with a 10-ohm resistor and the second coil is in series with a 20-ohm resistor.  Which coil produces the stronger magnetic field?   Can you see what I am saying how that's a bullshit experiment?

After factoring everything in, the real experiment here is to test your two coils with the same current going through each coll.  Then, if you are going to measure the attraction force for each coil, you need to measure what it looks like along the axis of the coil at perhaps five or more distances from a pole.  That puts the two coils on a level playing field.

My final thought which I think you avoided is to go back to the permeability issue.  That is sound and makes sense and I thank Mark for mentioning it.  If you did a proper test setup like I mention above, I have to assume that when you are at a "far distance" from the the poles of the respective coils, that you will measure a stronger magnetic field from the copper coil.  I am not talking pull force, I am talking doing a compass test or something like that to see which field is stronger.  Will you feel a stronger attraction force up close for the iron coil?  What Mark said about the curl sounds plausible.  I would measure the forces and also do an iron filings test to look at the curl and gradient of the magnetic fields from the two coil.

Consider this a kind of iteration on your experiment.   But with 20-20 hindsight it's now apparent to me that you can't do a test yourself and see it and play with it, and give us pop quiz questions without us seeing the same tests ourselves.  That is fundamentally unfair and there are just too many unknowns and limitations.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 03:38:33 PM
Tinman:

One more thing to mention that's very important:

Pull-force on a test piece of iron is not the same thing as the strength of the magnetic field.

Based on reading your postings, I am still not convinced that you understand this concept.  My impression is that you think [stronger pull force = stronger magnetic field] when that is not necessarily the case.  If you don't get this concept then some of what I stated in my previous big posting may throw you off.

When you probe the pull force around a coil with a test piece of iron that does not directly tell you the strength of the magnetic field.  They are related but they are not the same.

So, do you get this concept?   We have to be speaking a common language.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 03:57:12 PM
There are at least several aspects of modern physics with respect to magnets that Tinman disagrees with.  And he thinks that he has good experimental evidence for his ideas. 

On the iron versus copper, pure iron has roughly  100:17X the resistivity of copper.  Whether Tinman has very pure iron wire or an allow we do not presently know.  But even with roughly 6X the resistivity of copper wire, the permeability is at least 1000X higher than the copper wire.  So even driving with about 2.4X voltage and getting about 0.4X current and 0.4X M, the flux density gradient near the poles is much higher.  Tinman is very visceral in his interpretaion of magnets.  If he sees higher mechanical force somewhere he has called that a stronger field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 03:59:08 PM
This is going to be a time-out on this thread to address a completely different issue:

Captain Zero, can you see a nice lively discussion going on here?  Aren't we just discussing tech and bouncing ideas back and forth and having a spirited debate?

Is this the work of the evil cabal?  Are the Men in Black scurrying around in the background working to poison Timnan's mind?

This the stuff that you always ignore.  Just a friendly discussion with some strong views, all part of a healthy normal debate.  It's something very positive, people can read this stuff and try go get something out of it and improve their own skills.

But no, I and others are just "paid shills," here to "disrupt the creative process" according to you?  Between that crazy view of yours and your endless filthy potty-mouth scat-boy jackass talk, what an idiot you come across as.

Really, can you at least stop the infantile potty-mouth talk?  That would be a good first step.  The next step is to stop talking like some paranoid tragicomic character in some lousy B-grade Hollywood movie.  I am just so sick of it and I am willing to bet you that many other are too.

Stop the fucking ass-licking turd-boy talk, please!

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 04:01:28 PM
This is going to be a time-out on this thread to address a completely different issue:

Captain Zero, can you see a nice lively discussion going on here?  Aren't we just discussing tech and bouncing ideas back and forth and having a spirited debate?

Is this the work of the evil cabal?  Are the Men in Black scurrying around in the background working to poison Timnan's mind?

This the stuff that you always ignore.  Just a friendly discussion with some strong views, all part of a healthy normal debate.  It's something very positive, people can read this stuff and try go get something out of it and improve their own skills.

But no, I and others are just "paid shills," here to "disrupt the creative process" according to you?  Between that crazy view of yours and your endless filthy potty-mouth scat-boy jackass talk, what an idiot you come across as.

Really, can you at least stop the infantile potty-mouth talk?  That would be a good first step.  The next step is to stop talking like some paranoid tragicomic character in some lousy B-grade Hollywood movie.  I am just so sick of it and I am willing to bet you that many other are too.

Stop the fucking ass-licking turd-boy talk, please!

MileHigh
Please don't say Beetlejuice three times.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 20, 2015, 04:26:19 PM



    I'm fascinated by the circular patterns which occur with the Ferrocell  pictures.
Just wondered if there was a simple explanation.
                      John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 20, 2015, 05:10:53 PM
Tinman:

One more thing to mention that's very important:

Pull-force on a test piece of iron is not the same thing as the strength of the magnetic field.

Based on reading your postings, I am still not convinced that you understand this concept.  My impression is that you think [stronger pull force = stronger magnetic field] when that is not necessarily the case.  If you don't get this concept then some of what I stated in my previous big posting may throw you off.

When you probe the pull force around a coil with a test piece of iron that does not directly tell you the strength of the magnetic field.  They are related but they are not the same.

So, do you get this concept?   We have to be speaking a common language.

MileHigh

"Pull-force on a test piece of iron is not the same thing as the strength of the magnetic field".


This is nothing but complete bullshit. All magnetometers work on the principle of attraction to magnetic objects starting with Gauss and Faraday.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 20, 2015, 05:24:54 PM
This is going to be a time-out on this thread to address a completely different issue:

Captain Zero, can you see a nice lively discussion going on here?  Aren't we just discussing tech and bouncing ideas back and forth and having a spirited debate?

Is this the work of the evil cabal?  Are the Men in Black scurrying around in the background working to poison Timnan's mind?

This the stuff that you always ignore.  Just a friendly discussion with some strong views, all part of a healthy normal debate.  It's something very positive, people can read this stuff and try go get something out of it and improve their own skills.

But no, I and others are just "paid shills," here to "disrupt the creative process" according to you?  Between that crazy view of yours and your endless filthy potty-mouth scat-boy jackass talk, what an idiot you come across as.

Really, can you at least stop the infantile potty-mouth talk?  That would be a good first step.  The next step is to stop talking like some paranoid tragicomic character in some lousy B-grade Hollywood movie.  I am just so sick of it and I am willing to bet you that many other are too.

Stop the fucking ass-licking turd-boy talk, please!

MileHigh

@MileHigh,

You're shameless about constantly feeding complete bullshit like this into the forum: 

"Pull-force on a test piece of iron is not the same thing as the strength of the magnetic field".

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 20, 2015, 05:26:42 PM

TinMan
Some light reading directly related to misconceptions  . And perhaps a method to harvest energy
From some heretofore difficult venues....?

http://bovan.net/gmweb2/The%20FS%20Loop.htm (http://bovan.net/gmweb2/The%20FS%20Loop.htm).  (From a friend of Yours )


Enjoy


Chet
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 05:30:11 PM
"Pull-force on a test piece of iron is not the same thing as the strength of the magnetic field".


This is nothing but complete bullshit. All magnetometers work on the principle of attraction to magnetic objects starting with Gauss and Faraday.
You are wrong.  M the measure fo the entire field of a magnet is found by integrating the magnet's entire flux.  Yes magnetometers measure mechanical force exerted, but no the force is not a direct reading of M.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 20, 2015, 05:30:59 PM
@MileHigh,

You're shameless about constantly feeding complete bullshit like this into the forum: 

"Pull-force on a test piece of iron is not the same thing as the strength of the magnetic field".
It isn't.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 05:56:45 PM
Quote
You're shameless about constantly feeding complete bullshit like this into the forum:

1.  Your statement shows that you don't possess a fundamental understanding of how magnetic fields work.
2.  MarkE backed me up so everybody knows that you are wrong.
3.  "Constantly feeding complete bullshit" is just you playing the borderline-insane character or you truly have a compromised cognitive function and you are unable to interpret and analyse situations and motivations properly.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 20, 2015, 06:02:31 PM
This is going to be a time-out on this thread to address a completely different issue:

Yeah, and topic is.....this Doosgbag's obsession with ol' Cap

Quote
Captain Zero, can you see a nice lively discussion going on here?  Aren't we just discussing tech and bouncing ideas back and forth and having a spirited debate?

Cap sees the doosh being his same old self, and his very capable opponent correcting his every attempt at trolling...which is not the same as him jumping on a new member presenting out of the box ideas.

And so, Cap has no need to intervene.

He can bullsh!t here all day long if someone is willing to engage him.


Quote
Is this the work of the evil cabal?  Are the Men in Black scurrying around in the background working to poison Timnan's mind?

I seems that its the work of an adolescent.


Quote
This the stuff that you always ignore.

Is he getting up to speed ?


Quote
Just a friendly discussion with some strong views, all part of a healthy normal debate.

Which is why I minded my own business...theat is, until the Doosh dragged my name into it.


Quote
It's something very positive, people can read this stuff and try go get something out of it and improve their own skills.

As if people didn't already knew he was a doosh though.


Quote
But no, I and others are just "paid shills," here to "disrupt the creative process" according to you?

And according to the evidence, I wood add.


Quote
Between that crazy view of yours and your endless filthy potty-mouth scat-boy jackass talk, what an idiot you come across as.

In my defense, there are just so many creative ways to out trolls


Quote
Really, can you at least stop the infantile potty-mouth talk?

I wood be happy to...if he wood just shut up 10 Percent of the time.


Quote
I am just so sick of it and I am willing to bet you that many other are too.

Me too...but it doesn't look like the trolling is abating.
 

Quote
Stop the fucking ass-licking turd-boy talk, please!

F-bombs are acceptable apparently.


Quote
MileHigh

How high ?


Please don't say Beetlejuice three times.

Apparently said Beetlejism three times and brought forth anotther of the forum's Dooshbag's

Regards...


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 06:08:34 PM
PW&Mark


Now if we use ion's to carry that current by way of an ionic conductor,the ion flow is opposite to that of the electron flow,and although the polarity is the same through the ionic conductor,the opposite flow of ions creates a magnetic field around that conductor that is opposite to that of the one created by electron flow. The down side is that because of the higher resistance of the ionic conductor,a higher power level must be used to obtain a decent amount of current through that conductor.

If we make a K/CL mix of the right ratio,we can ballance that flow of current between the ion carriers and electron carriers. Once this ballance is correct,then the net magnetic field around the conductor is 0.

Another problem associated with this when useing a DC current is of course electrolysis. But this problem is omited when useing AC current.

Tinman,

Here is my take on your post:

I assume that a flow of protons will produce a magnetic field opposite to that of electrons flowing in the SAME direction.  As such, the right hand rule apparently applies to both.  That is, thumb towards the negative most polarity.  (I assume the same applies to any other positive ion flow as well)

I believe the above to be true but hopefully others will respond further regarding this. 

However, for a given orientation of the DC polarity applied, say negative to the left and positive to the right, electron flow will be towards the right and positive ion flow will be towards the left.  In this example the electron and ion flow are in the OPPOSITE directions.

If we have a conductor wherein both electrons and positive ions are equally mobile, applying a DC potential to the ends of that conductor would cause the electron flow and ion flow to be in opposite directions.

If we assume the right hand rule applies as above, the magnetic field produced by the electron flow and positive ion flow (which are in opposite directions) would both produce a magnetic field with similar orientation (i.e., they would reinforce, not cancel).

The KCl experiment you propose may or may not be similar to the condition above wherein both electrons and positive ions are EQUALLY mobile.  I am definitely no expert regarding electrochemistry.  However, if you are going to perform this test using KCl, I would assume that there would be transport and recombination time related factors that would suggest using DC as opposed to AC.

I am not sure how you plan to configure your experiment, but one method might be to use an electrolyte filled plastic tube between two open containers with electrodes in each connected to a DC power supply.  The electrolyte filled tubing would be your "special conductor".  A compass placed across that conductor could be used to indicate the direction of the magnetic field.

A control test can be performed using the same current realized in the above test thru a copper or aluminum conductor with the same orientation as the special conductor.  Due to the lower resistance of the Cu or Al, you will need an accurate means to both measure and regulate your DC current. 

If you have already performed some experiments regarding this, how did you configure your test and what results did you obtain?

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 06:11:35 PM
MH,

Please don't feed trolls on this thread...

@ALL,

Would it be possible for everyone to try to post without using any emotionally charged adjectives, slurs, or personal jabs for even just a single day?

I fail to see their relevance or utility...

My apologies to all for this off topic post.
PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 20, 2015, 08:01:42 PM
It isn't.

Strength of a magnetic field is measured in Tesla units or Gauss.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 20, 2015, 08:08:36 PM
"Pull-force on a test piece of iron is not the same thing as the strength of the magnetic field".
It is true. A linear "pull force" on a piece of iron depends on the gradient of magnetic flux density, and a torque acting on a magnetic dipole (e.g. a bar magnet)  depends on magnetic flux density and the sine of the angle that the dipole forms with the B field's direction.

This is nothing but complete bullshit. All magnetometers work on the principle of attraction to magnetic objects
No, for example the Hall sensor works on the principle of Lorentz deflection of electric charges.  The Hall sensor is sensitive to the magnetic flux density and the angle to the B field, unlike iron which is linearly sensitive only to the flux density gradient. 
Because of this difference it is possible for a Hall sensor to give a very high reading while a piece of iron placed in the same location will not experience any linear attraction force.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 20, 2015, 08:14:15 PM
Strength of a magnetic field is measured in Tesla units or Gauss.
Actually those are units of magnetic flux density. (a.k.a. "B field")
It is possible for a piece of iron to experience zero linear force in a high magnetic flux density, because the iron reacts linearly only to its gradient.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 20, 2015, 08:27:57 PM
It is true. A linear "pull force" on a piece of iron depends on the gradient of magnetic flux density, and a torque acting on a magnetic dipole (e.g. a bar magnet)  depends on magnetic flux density and the sine of the angle that the dipole forms with the B field's direction.
No, for example the Hall sensor works on the principle of Lorentz deflection of electric charges.  The Hall sensor is sensitive to the magnetic flux density and the angle to the B field, unlike iron which is linearly sensitive only to the flux density gradient. 
Because of this difference it is possible for a Hall sensor to give a very high reading while a piece of iron placed in the same location will not experience any linear attraction force.

@Verpies,

The Hall effect sensor simply produces a voltage proportional to the applied magnetic field. The strength of the magnetc field is measured in gauss: "The gauss, abbreviated as G or Gs, is the cgs unit of measurement of a magnetic field B, which is also known as the "magnetic flux density" or the "magnetic induction".

"The most common magnetic sensing devices are solid-state Hall effect sensors. These sensors produce a voltage proportional to the applied magnetic field and also sense polarity".

One gauss is also equal to 10−4 kg C−1 s−1. Notice the Kg value in the gauss equation. This represents "Kilograms of pull force".
This value alone is the sole value of magnetic field strength.

Hall effect sensor voltage is directly proportional to the "pull force" of the applied magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 08:55:52 PM
Synchro1:

MarkE, Verpies, and myself are correct and you are wrong.  I am sure that Picowatt would join our club also.  What I suggest you do is look over what has been stated and do some searching on those terms and find the information and learn it.  If there are people that are interested in magnetism and the terms "magnetic flux," "magnetic flux density," and especially the term "magnetic field gradient" make you just "zone out" and just skip it, you can't.  Just do the work and hopefully come back better informed.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 09:08:38 PM
Synchro1:

MarkE, Verpies, and myself are correct and you are wrong.  I am sure that Picowatt would join our club also.  What I suggest you do is look over what has been stated and do some searching on those terms and find the information and learn it.  If there are people that are interested in magnetism and the terms "magnetic flux," "magnetic flux density," and especially the term "magnetic field gradient" make you just "zone out" and just skip it, you can't.  Just do the work and hopefully come back better informed.

MileHigh

Agreed,

I particularly liked Verpies' recent posts.  Accurate, succinct, and to the point.

PW


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 20, 2015, 09:15:59 PM
One gauss is also equal to 10−4 kg C−1 s−1. Notice the Kg value in the gauss equation. This represents "Kilograms of pull force".
This value alone is the sole value of magnetic field strength.
No, kilogram is not a unit of force.  Anyway in that formula you have kilograms per second, which is mass change.  :o
Xavier Borg (http://blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp) has even different units for flux density if that amuses you.

Hall effect sensor voltage is directly proportional to the "pull force" of the applied magnetic field.
No, Hall effect sensors can give a high indication even when a piece of iron placed in the same location experiences no linear force.
Ergo, they don't measure the same thing.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 09:22:28 PM

One gauss is also equal to 10−4 kg C−1 s−1. Notice the Kg value in the gauss equation. This represents "Kilograms of pull force".
This value alone is the sole value of magnetic field strength.


Synchro1,

Consider why there is a capital "C" in the cited formula...

PW
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 20, 2015, 09:54:18 PM
Damn I just lost a posting.  I don't know why but it's agony to recompose a posting that you just lost.  In a nutshell I was apologizing because I know that sometimes I flub my units, like "magnetic flux gradient" vs. "magnetic field gradient."  I may sometimes say "magnetic flux" when I really should be saying "magnetic flux density," etc.  I only did this stuff in school, including the bench work.  It was a long time ago.  I don't think and breathe this stuff at all.  As a result my technical vocabulary and the use of the proper technical terms and concepts can be less than stellar at times.  I know the terms and pretty much understand them, but the proper technical prose to describe something does not flow like it does from some of you guys.  Sometimes I will go back to the Hyperphysics web site to brush up but I don't really go that deep.  So I have my own "zone out" threshold.  So I apologize again and please feel free to correct me if I make a mistake.  When in doubt, defer to the really big guns around here.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 20, 2015, 10:59:02 PM
Damn I just lost a posting.  I don't know why but it's agony to recompose a posting that you just lost.  In a nutshell I was apologizing because I know that sometimes I flub my units, like "magnetic flux gradient" vs. "magnetic field gradient."  I may sometimes say "magnetic flux" when I really should be saying "magnetic flux density," etc.  I only did this stuff in school, including the bench work.  It was a long time ago.  I don't think and breathe this stuff at all.  As a result my technical vocabulary and the use of the proper technical terms and concepts can be less than stellar at times.  I know the terms and pretty much understand them, but the proper technical prose to describe something does not flow like it does from some of you guys.  Sometimes I will go back to the Hyperphysics web site to brush up but I don't really go that deep.  So I have my own "zone out" threshold.  So I apologize again and please feel free to correct me if I make a mistake.  When in doubt, defer to the really big guns around here.

MH,

Yes, the connection error thing is quite annoying.  Seems to be getting worse.

As for the rest of your post, none of us are infallible.  It is often easy to "misspeak" and worse yet, at my age, I am a bit of a rusty nail when it comes to topics I have not dealt with to any great degree for many years. 

However, the formula Synchro1 posted "One gauss is also equal to 10−4 kg C−1 s−1" to me reads as "One gauss equals 10-4kg per Coulomb per second".  Hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is the acceleration a conductor will experience while passing 1 Coulomb at a right angle to a flux of 1 gauss. 

As I said, I could be wrong, so hopefully someone will comment a bit further and better than I...

MarkE?  Verpies?

PW



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 11:33:52 PM
Tinman:




MileHigh
Quote
Okay, for starters, one thing that you have to realize is that experimentally you have an "advantage."  You do the experiment, you see it in front of your own eyes, you try different things, and it all seems pretty clear to you.  Then you give us a few sentences that are typically just results and the barest of any description at all.  Realistically, there are going to be limitations in what you get in terms of feedback and in my head I have to "invent" the setup and the details of what I _think_ might be going on and you can see all the pitfalls that happen on both sides because of that.
It wasnt my intention to give a full description of my test,i was simply stateing that i had done this very test,and i wanted to know if you knew what the outcome would be.

Quote
If in the future you want to discuss another experiment and explore the theme of "books vs. bench" then the much better way to do that would be to make a good video clip of it.  And I have to fire a warning shot across the bow here.  No verbal description of your circuit.  If you are not willing to make a schematic for tests that involve some kind of circuit then forget it.  You probably have some old clips on your channel where you do a verbal run-down describing 10 to 15 connections and it just doesn't fly.
Are you saying that you need a full schematic of a DC power supply,AMP meter and a coil?-you wouldnt be able to follow that in a video description?.

Quote
I read Mark's comments about the pull force and the possible increased curl giving you a higher gradient close to the poles.  That might mean that there is a stronger pulling force only in close proximity to the poles.  It might mean that the attraction force dies off very quickly with distance for the "stronger" coil and for the "weaker" coil the attraction force extends out much further.  We have zero data so it's all an unknown.
Quote post 1416:  I believe the reason for this is because the field is much more concentrated around the iron coil. The field around the copper coil may well have been much larger in size-this i didnt check.

Quote
If the difference was very minimal, then I could ignore your incorrect reference to power dissipation,
Once again,as to where did i give any power disipation meassurements for the circuit setup?. I used only P/in.

 
Quote
It's like you are saying this to us:  I have two identical copper coils driven from the same voltage source.  The first coil is in series with a 10-ohm resistor and the second coil is in series with a 20-ohm resistor.  Which coil produces the stronger magnetic field?   Can you see what I am saying how that's a bullshit experiment?
No,it's not like im saying that at all. We are useing two different materials in the same configuration to see which gives rise to better results for the same P/in. The resistance is a value associated with the different materials used-nothing we can do about that if we wish to use these two different materials.

Quote
If the currents in the two coils are significantly different, then the whole test is in a sense BS.  Yes, I am using strong terms.  It's because if you are comparing how two coils of the same geometry will produce a magnetic field, then you want to have the two coils have the same current going through them.  This is something you should know and you should have set up your experiment like this.

No No No.
When we want to know what coil will give the best results for a machine that requires a certain field strength  from our coil to opperate at close proximity to that coil for the least P/in,then the test was done correctly.
Once again-the P/in was the same.

Quote
After factoring everything in, the real experiment here is to test your two coils with the same current going through each coll.  Then, if you are going to measure the attraction force for each coil, you need to measure what it looks like along the axis of the coil at perhaps five or more distances from a pole.  That puts the two coils on a level playing field.
No,the real test was to supply the two coils with the same P/in,and test the pull/attraction force of each coil at close prximity.

 
Quote
I have to assume that when you are at a "far distance" from the the poles of the respective coils, that you will measure a stronger magnetic field from the copper coil.

As i mentioned in reply to TK's post.

Quote
But with 20-20 hindsight it's now apparent to me that you can't do a test yourself

With 20/20 hindsight,it is clear that you decided to make assumptions about my test without knowing anything about it. For what i wanted to know,the test was carried out correctly,and gave me the exact results i needed to know. And to say i cant do a test correctly,and base that assumption on incorrect assumptions, is the BS you are after.

Quote
My final thought which I think you avoided is to go back to the permeability issue.  That is sound and makes sense and I thank Mark for mentioning it.  If you did a proper test setup like I mention above, I am not talking pull force, I am talking doing a compass test or something like that to see which field is stronger.  Will you feel a stronger attraction force up close for the iron coil?  What Mark said about the curl sounds plausible.  I would measure the forces and also do an iron filings test to look at the curl and gradient of the magnetic fields from the two coil.

The test setup was correct for the information i required. I have already agreed that the magnetic field from the copper coil was probably much larger,and the iron wire would have concentrated the field around the coil.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 20, 2015, 11:55:29 PM
 
Quote
No, kilogram is not a unit of force.
1kg is equal to 9.81N,and newtons are a messure of force. Is this splitting hairs? or are we to stick to the !1kg is an amount of mass that exerts a force of 9.81N on the earths surface?!.
Seems to me that saying 1kg of force is exactly the same as saying 9.81 newtons of force when used here on earth. This would however change in space where there is no gravity,as you can have mass but no weight.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 12:04:29 AM
As I said, I could be wrong, so hopefully someone will comment a bit further and better than I...
MarkE?  Verpies?

You can interpret the Tesla in so many ways, it's not funny.
...and don't forget the Xavier Borg's blog (http://blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp) while you're at it  ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 12:06:56 AM
Where:

m = meter
s = second
kg = kilogram
A = Ampere
V = Volt
C = Coulomb
J = Joule
N = Newton
H = Henry
Wb = Weber
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 12:08:52 AM
TinMan
Some light reading directly related to misconceptions  . And perhaps a method to harvest energy
From some heretofore difficult venues....?

http://bovan.net/gmweb2/The%20FS%20Loop.htm (http://bovan.net/gmweb2/The%20FS%20Loop.htm).  (From a friend of Yours )


Enjoy


Chet
Just started reading this Chet,and im hooked already.
How true is this book.
1 verse-quote:
Also, most folk seem to forget that when they are but one in a crowd of like minded and consensus deriving thinkers, everyone still has individual and personal responsibility for what they themselves believe, and thus for all of their actions which result from their beliefs, whether these appear to be majority determinations or not.  Yet whilst some individuals do not know what questions to ask in order to develop a fundamentally correct comprehension, or are maybe unwilling to be recognised for being seen to ask an important question which might upset many egotists or activists within their group (yes, even in science), with the result that many follow blindly without asking or thinking, or accept that they ought not ask when told to not do so, no one can achieve a usefully realistic understanding without provision being made for the answering of each and every question posed.  So in relation to formative learning, we ought not rely solely upon explanations provided exclusively by the hierarchical and subjectively imagined hypotheses which led to the development of qualified "expert" opinion, but instead strengthen foundations by building upon irrefutable findings via the objectively established and openly truthful reporting of observation and occurrences, also repeat testing, demonstration and experimentation, such that we might beware a collection of isolated facts becoming joined together in a manner which misrepresents fundamental truth, due to our minds having been conditioned in a manner which makes it difficult to see beyond any 'power presentation' of anything we are told;  as especially with relation to the fundamental nature of electromagnetic-radiation itself.

Lets await the onslaught.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 12:13:20 AM
1kg is equal to 9.81N,and newtons are a messure of force. Is this splitting hairs? or are we to stick to the !1kg is an amount of mass that exerts a force of 9.81N on the earths surface?!.
Seems to me that saying 1kg of force is exactly the same as saying 9.81 newtons of force when used here on earth. This would however change in space where there is no gravity,as you can have mass but no weight.
You;ve got the idea.  To be a bit more pedantic:  A kg is a unit of mass that is the same anywhere in the universe.  On average, at sea-level on earth a kg is subject to 9.81N force towards the earths CoG due to gravitational acceleration.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 01:14:02 AM
Tinman:

Sure I made some assumptions about your test.  We can't survive if we don't make assumptions.  Look, there is a commonality of thinking in a given discipline.  It promotes communication and allows for discussing things with commonly accepted terms and understood frames of reference.

You said that you were a trucker?  When you are driving at night and one truck wants to pass another truck, the truck in behind will flip off his headlights for a 1/4 second when he is ready to make his move.  Then the truck up ahead will flip off his running lights for 1/4 second to acknowledge the passing request so everybody is cool and both drivers know what is going on.  Is that right?  I think it works like that.  Well, what if you wanted to pass and instead and you flashed your high beams three times?  That would mess things up, no?  If I recall correctly flashing your high beams three times means "a big thank you."  I don't remember the exact code but it's something like that.  Now, the average driver in a car is not even aware of the code.  But if you are a long-haul trucker or an inter-city bus driver you sure as hell better know the code.  It's for safety and your life could depend on it.

Now you said that you wanted to compare the magnetic fields from two different coils that were the same physical dimensions and wire gage but one was iron and the other one was copper.  I know that you said for the same power but we are going to put that aside for a second.  When you say that, what is a person that is experienced in electronics going to say to themselves?  Well, they hear "compare coils for magnetic field" and "same dimensions" then the fist thing that they are going to think is that you must have the same current flowing through each coil so that you have the same number of ampere-turns for each coil.  It's another variation on the trucker code.  This is what makes sense, this is what would be expected.  You said that you wanted to compare the magnetic fields after all.

When you do have the same current flowing through each coil, then you have the proverbial level playing field.  The experiment then becomes a question of checking how the wire itself affects the generation of the external magnetic field around the two coils.  You have one wire with a relative permeability of one and the other wire with a relative permeability of about 1000.  Now you have a controlled experiment for looking at and comparing the magnetic fields around the two coils based on the wire itself.

You can state that for the above type of test you want to ignore the resistance of the wire itself because the resistance of the wire is an easily to eliminate variable.  The resistance of the wire does not directly affect the generation of the magnetic field of the coil so you eliminate that as a variable.  The resistance of the wire only indirectly affects the generation of the magnetic field.

The simple fact is that you did not propose the test with the proper terminology.  We are back to "the code" again.  The real intention of your test was to see how the wire gage would affect the power dissipation in two different types of coils for certain magnetic field strength.  That's really what you are talking about, and it's not the test that I stated above.

Something like this:

For the same magnetic field generation for a copper coil of the same number of turns and dimensions:

Gauge      Watts
36           8
24           6
16           4

For the same magnetic field generation for an iron coil of the same number of turns and dimensions:

Gauge      Watts
36           22
24           18
16           13

In other words, you can take a copper coil, and for the identical magnetic field generation, choose almost any power dissipation you want (within limits) by adjusting the diameter of the wire itself.

For an iron wire, it's similar but a bit more complicated because as the diameter of the wire increases, you will be able to store progressively more magnetic energy in the wire itself.  So you don't necessarily have the the identical external magnetic field generation as you increase the diameter of the wire.  It's a second variable that complicates things.

But do you see my point?   It was the same thing with Luc's test.  He was testing "watts required for a given pulling force."  One more time you can dial up any wattage you want just by changing the diameter of the wire.  In the context of what he was trying to research, he should have been testing ampere-turns vs. pulling force.

You want to push back the deeper you get into electronics and go your own way.  The better way of going about it would be to at least try to understand what is going on first before you reject it.  I am talking in general terms here.  Mark said you have your "own ideas" about magnetics and coils and stuff like that.  Everybody is speaking the same language in the world of electronics, why do you want to speak your own language, especially if you are wrong about something?  The real solution is to give it a shot and push yourself and see if it starts to become clearer for you.  Eventually you start speaking the same language and using the same "code."

Again, you simply did not express yourself properly with respect to what you really wanted to do.  Yes, copper and iron have different resistances.  So it's self evident that you will have to put more voltage across the iron coil to get a similar (but not identical) magnetic field generation.  In the truest sense that has nothing to do with "comparing different wire materials for magnetic field generation."

Like many things in life Tinman, you have to get with the program.  It doesn't mean that you are "locked in" and can't do certain experiments.  It just means that you have to use the same communication tools and concepts that everybody else uses in order to be effective.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 01:25:00 AM
To be fair:  Tinman did say that he used the same number of turns.  He did say that he used iron wire.  And he did say that he operated at constant power.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 01:32:44 AM
To be fair:  Tinman did say that he used the same number of turns.  He did say that he used iron wire.  And he did say that he operated at constant power.

But then he should have stated the fact that the coil resistances were significantly different.  I had no clue.  The last time I might have even looked at that would have been in the back of a textbook in 1980.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 01:37:22 AM
Tinman:

You chopped my sentence up half-way.

"But with 20-20 hindsight it's now apparent to me that you can't do a test yourself"

vs.

"But with 20-20 hindsight it's now apparent to me that you can't do a test yourself and see it and play with it, and give us pop quiz questions without us seeing the same tests ourselves."

Do you get the meaning in what I said?  It probably could have been worded better bit it is what it is.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 01:42:16 AM
Everybody is speaking the same language in the world of electronics, why do you want to speak your own language, especially if you are wrong about something?  Eventually you start speaking the same language and using the same "code."
@Tinman
This does not mean that you cannot have your own ideas, nor that you cannot question the established science.
It just makes it simpler to communicate your ideas to others.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 01:53:12 AM
Fields with negligible fringing

Some problems of practical importance can be solved when the air gap between the electromagnet and the work piece is small in comparison with the field cross section. This is the situation found in most electromechanical relays.

Basic construction of an electromechanical relay

Equation EFB gives the energy density (joules per metre cubed). Assuming that the field inside the air gap is uniform you can use EFB to get the total field energy simply by multiplying by the volume of the field, V


V = g × A

Equation FRV


 where g is the gap length and A is the cross sectional area of the coil's core. The total energy is then


W = ( B2/(2 μ0)) × (g × A)

Equation FRT



 We need the force on the armature. That is given by the rate of change of energy with gap length


F = dW/dg

Equation FRP



F =  B2 A / (2 μ0)

Maxwell's pulling
 force formula


 We next need to find the flux density,  B. It's assumption time again. Well designed relays use such high permeability material for the core and armature that most of the field strength produced by the coil will appear across the air gap between the core and the armature and we can ignore the  reluctance of the core, pivot and armature. Substituting equation TMH into equation TMD we get


 B = Fm μ0 / g

Equation FRQ


 Substituting into Maxwell's force formula


F = ( Fm)2 μ0 A / (2 g2)

Equation FRS


If you have ever tried to bring a piece of iron into contact with a magnet manually then you will quite literally have a feel for the g2 term!

Example: A relay has a coil of 1200 turns. The diameter of the coil core is 6 millimetres and the air gap is 1.8 millimetres. The spring exerts a force on the armature of 0.15 newtons at the part of it opposite the air gap. What coil current will operate the relay?

The core cross sectional area, A = π (0.006/2)2 = 2.83×10-5 m2. Substituting into equation FRS


0.15 = (1200 × I)2 4π×10-7 × 2.83×10-5 / (2 × (1.8×10-3)2)

Equation FRU


 Therefore I = 0.138 amps. The flux density will be 0.116 teslas. This should be well below saturation for iron. As the gap closes, and g goes to zero, equation FRS predicts that the force on the armature becomes infinite. Of course it won't do so because our assumptions about the field production will go down the tubes first. Under those conditions it might be far harder to calculate the force precisely. One point to note, though, is that flux density is limited by saturation to below about 1.6 teslas. Maxwell's force formula therefore sets a limit on the force of one million newtons per square metre (about 100 tons).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 01:55:52 AM
You;ve got the idea.  To be a bit more pedantic:  A kg is a unit of mass that is the same anywhere in the universe.  On average, at sea-level on earth a kg is subject to 9.81N force towards the earths CoG due to gravitational acceleration.
;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 02:04:44 AM
Above are equations that calculate the amount of current required to close the relay contacts. What we're dealing with is the "Pull Force" between the electromagnetic coil and the iron armature. The spring exerts a force on the armature of .15 Newtons. Therefore it will require I = 0.138 amps. The flux density will be 0.116 teslas to equal the .15 newtons of spring force.

In view of these mathematical relationships, it's absurd to maintain that "pull force of iron is no measure of field strength" as MileHigh falsely alledges. The "Pull Force" of .15 newtons from the coil on the iron armature is equal to 0.116 teslas.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 02:12:24 AM
But then he should have stated the fact that the coil resistances were significantly different.  I had no clue.  The last time I might have even looked at that would have been in the back of a textbook in 1980.
My apologies MH,i thought you would have know that the soft iron wire coil of same number of turns to that of the copper wire coil would have had more resistance. I will say though,i also didnt know that until i placed my ohm meter across both coil's. But it took me not 10 seconds to learn that on the bench-i feel it would have taken much longer than that by reading books. ;)
Hands on is a much faster and precise way to learn MH,but i do agree that if you dont understand what you are seeing,then turn to the book's-or in our day and age,the internet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 02:13:54 AM
@Tinman
This does not mean that you cannot have your own ideas, nor that you cannot question the established science.
It just makes it simpler to communicate your ideas to others.
I will endevor to do better.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 02:48:51 AM
Tinman:

You have an interesting conundrum to contemplate.

Okay, we want two coils to dissipate the same amount of power.  Coil #1 (the copper coil) has R resistance and Coil #2 (the iron coil) has 6R resistance (as an example).

So:   I1^2*R = I2^2*6R

        I1^2 =   I2^2*6

        I1 =  Sqrt(6)*I2

        I1 = 2.45*I2

So for example if the iron wire coil has one amp flowing through it and the resistance is 6 ohms, then the power dissipated in the iron wire coil is 6 watts.

Then if the copper wire coil has 2.45 amps flowing though it and the resistance is one ohm, then the power dissipated in the copper wire coil is 6.05 watts.  So the formula checks out.

I recall that you stated that the iron wire coil had the stronger magnetic field.  When we look at the hypothetical example above, the copper wire coil has to have about 2.45 amps running through it compared to only one amp for the iron wire coil.

Plus, we know that some of the iron wire coil's magnetic field is trapped inside the wire itself, suggesting an even weaker external magnetic field than expected.

Since you stated that the iron wire coil had the stronger magnetic field, how can you account for the fact that the copper wire coil actually has more current flowing through it?   That would suggest that it's the copper wire coil that should have the stronger magnetic field.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 02:53:01 AM
Above are equations that calculate the amount of current required to close the relay contacts. What we're dealing with is the "Pull Force" between the electromagnetic coil and the iron armature. The spring exerts a force on the armature of .15 Newtons. Therefore it will require I = 0.138 amps. The flux density will be 0.116 teslas to equal the .15 newtons of spring force.

In view of these mathematical relationships, it's absurd to maintain that "pull force of iron is no measure of field strength" as MileHigh falsely maintains. The "Pull Force" of .15 newtons from the coil on the iron armature is equal to 0.116 teslas.
If one shapes the pole shoes of a magnet, they can change the pull force on an iron test sample sample a lot.  Do you think that shaping the pole shoe changes the energy that is in the magnetic field, or just how that energy is distributed?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 02:57:41 AM
Tinman:

You have an interesting conundrum to contemplate.

Okay, we want two coils to dissipate the same amount of power.  Coil #1 (the copper coil) has R resistance and Coil #2 (the iron coil) has 6R resistance (as an example).

So:   I1^2*R = I2^2*6R

        I1^2 =   I2^2*6

        I1 =  Sqrt(6)*I2

        I1 = 2.45*I2

So for example if the iron wire coil has one amp flowing through it and the resistance is 6 ohms, then the power dissipated in the iron wire coil is 6 watts.

Then if the copper wire coil has 2.45 amps flowing though it and the resistance is one ohm, then the power dissipated in the copper wire coil is 6.05 watts.  So the formula checks out.

I recall that you stated that the iron wire coil had the stronger magnetic field.  When we look at the hypothetical example above, the copper wire coil has to have about 2.45 amps running through it compared to only one amp for the iron wire coil.

Plus, we know that some of the iron wire coil's magnetic field is trapped inside the wire itself, suggesting an even weaker external magnetic field than expected.

Since you stated that the iron wire coil had the stronger magnetic field, how can you account for the fact that the copper wire coil actually has more current flowing through it?   That would suggest that it's the copper wire coil that should have the stronger magnetic field.

MileHigh
Tinman is comparing different weight iron samples that he can lift with one or the other of his electromagnets.  He is measuring force.  Force on a soft iron piece goes with the gradient of the flux density, which is much higher for the iron wire coil.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 03:10:23 AM
Tinman:

You have an interesting conundrum to contemplate.

Okay, we want two coils to dissipate the same amount of power.  Coil #1 (the copper coil) has R resistance and Coil #2 (the iron coil) has 6R resistance (as an example).

So:   I1^2*R = I2^2*6R

        I1^2 =   I2^2*6

        I1 =  Sqrt(6)*I2

        I1 = 2.45*I2

So for example if the iron wire coil has one amp flowing through it and the resistance is 6 ohms, then the power dissipated in the iron wire coil is 6 watts.

Then if the copper wire coil has 2.45 amps flowing though it and the resistance is one ohm, then the power dissipated in the copper wire coil is 6.05 watts.  So the formula checks out.

I recall that you stated that the iron wire coil had the stronger magnetic field.  When we look at the hypothetical example above, the copper wire coil has to have about 2.45 amps running through it compared to only one amp for the iron wire coil.

Plus, we know that some of the iron wire coil's magnetic field is trapped inside the wire itself, suggesting an even weaker external magnetic field than expected.

Since you stated that the iron wire coil had the stronger magnetic field, how can you account for the fact that the copper wire coil actually has more current flowing through it?   That would suggest that it's the copper wire coil that should have the stronger magnetic field.

MileHigh
There is no conundrum to contemplate MH. If the P/in is the same in both coils,then the disipated energy in both coils must be the same,as energy can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed. I would suspect that the coil that uses the soft iron wire would be acting or represent a permanent magnet,where as the copper coil would not,as the copper itself is not magnetised.

EDIT: - i forgot to add this in.
As i said before,i would suspect that the copper coil would have a far larger field to that of the iron wire coil,as not only is the iron wire making the field,it becoms part of the field-much the same as having a core.

Now in saying that MH,here is a thought experiment(brain fart).
Lets take two cores that are identical in every way-lets say they are 1/2 inch round x 2 inches long,and well use solid ferrite for this thought experiment. We wind 100 turns of .55mm copper wire on one,and 100 turns of .55 soft iron wire on the other-both enameled coated for insulation.
We apply a P/in of say 5 watts to both(now) electromagnets.
Which do you suppose will have the strongest and largest magnetic field for the same P/in?.
An interesting thought experiment i think,as the one useing the iron wire now has a larger core,but uses the same amount of wire,where as the one useing the copper wire has a smaller core,but still has the same size outside diameter
 ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 03:19:28 AM
Tinman is comparing different weight iron samples that he can lift with one or the other of his electromagnets.  He is measuring force.  Force on a soft iron piece goes with the gradient of the flux density, which is much higher for the iron wire coil.

Okay, so I can suggest a follow-up test for Tinman.

You line up the axis of your copper-wire coll on magnetic east-west.   Then you put a compass say 10 inches away from the end of the coil on the line of the coil's axis.   Then you can energize the coil and note the amount of compass needle deflection for a certain amount of power dissipated in the coil, and also for a certain amount of current flowing through the coil.  You can obviously tweak the distances and amount of current flowing through the coil to give you a "nice" deflection of the compass needle, say somewhere between 30 and 45 degrees.

Then repeat the whole thing again for the iron-wire coil and compare results.

This test should give you a nice indication of the relative magnetic field strengths for both types of coils.  (This is not to be confused with the magnetic attraction force measurement.)  You basically have the compass needle aligning itself with the net magnetic field as supplied by the Earth and the coil under test (the two magnetic field sources will be at right angles to each other.)

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 03:27:48 AM
Okay, so I can suggest a follow-up test for Tinman.

You line up the axis of your copper-wire coll on magnetic east-west.   Then you put a compass say 10 inches away from the end of the coil on the line of the coil's axis.   Then you can energize the coil and note the amount of compass needle deflection for a certain amount of power dissipated in the coil, and also for a certain amount of current flowing through the coil.  You can obviously tweak the distances and amount of current flowing through the coil to give you a "nice" deflection of the compass needle, say somewhere between 30 and 45 degrees.

Then repeat the whole thing again for the iron-wire coil and compare results.

This test should give you a nice indication of the relative magnetic field strengths for both types of coils.  (This is not to be confused with the magnetic attraction force measurement.)  You basically have the compass needle aligning itself with the net magnetic field as supplied by the Earth and the coil under test (the two magnetic field sources will be at right angles to each other.)

MileHigh
I was editing my post above when you were posting this one MH.
As i said,i would suspect the copper coil would have a far larger magnetic field than that of the iron wire coil-->i think this go's without saying,as the iron wire itself would be pulling in the magnetic field-attraction.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 21, 2015, 03:37:04 AM
"I made a lot more electricity with my generator than I ever made with urine soaked cloth."
--Ned Leedskalnin
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 03:38:02 AM
There is no conundrum to contemplate MH. If the P/in is the same in both coils,then the disipated energy in both coils must be the same,as energy can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed. I would suspect that the coil that uses the soft iron wire would be acting or represent a permanent magnet,where as the copper coil would not,as the copper itself is not magnetised.

EDIT: - i forgot to add this in.
As i said before,i would suspect that the copper coil would have a far larger field to that of the iron wire coil,as not only is the iron wire making the field,it becoms part of the field-much the same as having a core.

Now in saying that MH,here is a thought experiment(brain fart).
Lets take two cores that are identical in every way-lets say they are 1/2 inch round x 2 inches long,and well use solid ferrite for this thought experiment. We wind 100 turns of .55mm copper wire on one,and 100 turns of .55 soft iron wire on the other-both enameled coated for insulation.
We apply a P/in of say 5 watts to both(now) electromagnets.
Which do you suppose will have the strongest and largest magnetic field for the same P/in?.
An interesting thought experiment i think,as the one useing the iron wire now has a larger core,but uses the same amount of wire,where as the one useing the copper wire has a smaller core,but still has the same size outside diameter
 ??? ??? ???

For the first part, I would suggest that the iron wire coil more of less "hides" some of the magnetic field inside the wire itself.  It's kind of like a variation on a leedskalnin PMH.  The magnetic field buried inside the wire will not affect the outside world.

For the thought experiment, the copper wire coil around the ferrite core would have the strongest magnetic field because you can pump more current through the coil for the same power dissipation.  If you go to the limit and the cooper wire resistance is zero, then it takes no continuous power to produce the magnetic field.  However, it still takes a certain finite amount of energy to get the current flowing because it's just a ferrite-core inductor that happens to have a coil wrapped around the ferrite that has zero resistance.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 03:50:17 AM
Here is a final thought for you to contemplate Tinman:

You have a rectangular block of ferrite on a wooden table.  There is no latent magnetic field in the ferrite.

You have a small magnet in your hand.   You approach the ferrite block and you feel the magnet tugging on your hand as the magnet goes and sticks to the ferrite block.

So, in the "before" case there was no magnetic field, and no magnetic energy inside the ferrite block.

In the "after" case now there is a magnetic field inside the ferrite block.  That means there is measurable magnetic energy inside the ferrite block.

So where did that energy come from?  Does a magnet act like some kind of "bottomless cup of coffee" with an infinite capacity to transfer energy into neutral blocks of ferrite?

Well, obviously that's impossible.  (Although just suggesting it makes me worry that someone is going to get all excited by the concept.)

The answer is that there is good old Lenz drag.  Even though the magnet is attracted to the neutral ferrite block, there is just a tiny tiny smidgen of Lenz drag as the magnet approaches the ferrite block.  There has to be, energy can't just appear in the ferrite block like magic.

That means that mechanical energy (force x displacement) is expended by a variation on "Mr. Hand" to pay the price to fill up the ferrite block with magnetic energy.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2015, 04:13:44 AM
Once again... you have to match the _current_, that is, amp-turns, not the _power_, because the resistance of the iron is greater than the copper by a fair amount.

Copper has a resistivity coefficient of 1.724 x 10-8 ohm-meters, and iron is 9.71 x 10-8 ohm-meters. So all other things being equal the iron coil will have 9.71/1.724 = about 5.6 times the resistance of the copper coil.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/resistivity-conductivity-d_418.html

Say the copper coil has 3 ohms resistance and you are using your 12 volt DC regulated supply. You therefore have I=V/R or 4 amps current, for a supplied power P = I2R = 16x3 = 48 Watts. If the iron coil has 3 ohms x 5.6 = 16.8 ohms, to get the same _4 amps current_, that is the same amp-turns as the copper coil, you need to use V = IR = 4 amps x 16.8 ohms = 67.2 volts, for a supplied power of P = I2R = 16 x 16.8 = 268.8 Watts.

268.8/48 = 5.6 (duh).  So to get the same amp-turns in the iron as in the copper, you need to supply not the _same power_ but 5.6 times _more power_ to the iron. This power is dissipated as heat.

This is why relay, motor, generator, solenoid, etc designers prefer to use copper rather than the -much cheaper- iron wire in their coils.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 05:03:07 AM
If one shapes the pole shoes of a magnet, they can change the pull force on an iron test sample sample a lot.  Do you think that shaping the pole shoe changes the energy that is in the magnetic field, or just how that energy is distributed?

@MarkE,

The point is not how magnet shape changes the magnetic field but how two magnets of identiclal shape and unequal strength attract an iron armature differently.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 05:18:30 AM
Okay, so I can suggest a follow-up test for Tinman.

You line up the axis of your copper-wire coll on magnetic east-west.   Then you put a compass say 10 inches away from the end of the coil on the line of the coil's axis.   Then you can energize the coil and note the amount of compass needle deflection for a certain amount of power dissipated in the coil, and also for a certain amount of current flowing through the coil.  You can obviously tweak the distances and amount of current flowing through the coil to give you a "nice" deflection of the compass needle, say somewhere between 30 and 45 degrees.

Then repeat the whole thing again for the iron-wire coil and compare results.

This test should give you a nice indication of the relative magnetic field strengths for both types of coils.  (This is not to be confused with the magnetic attraction force measurement.)  You basically have the compass needle aligning itself with the net magnetic field as supplied by the Earth and the coil under test (the two magnetic field sources will be at right angles to each other.)

MileHigh

@Tinman,

Suspend an iron keeper from a long string attached to the ceiling overhead. Secure a laser pen to the string, and mark the spots on the wall where the light beam touches.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 05:32:49 AM


 This power is dissipated as heat.

Is not all the P/in disipated as heat in an inductor being supplied with a DC current?. I mean,it dosnt require power to maintain a magnetic field,as the field can do no useful work,and a PM dose not require any power input to maintain it's field.The resistance of the coil,and the amps to the coil tells us how much power we are using,so it's all accounted for.This means that it takes no power to create and maintain the actual magnetic field,as all power in is disipated as heat.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 05:43:55 AM
In fact,thinking about my last statement,i believe i can prove that a permanent magnet can/is doing useful work.

Want to run with me on this one MarkE?-work together on proving that a PM can/is doing useful work.

P.S-we can do it useing your very well loved physics. ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 05:53:56 AM
@MarkE,

The point is not how magnet shape changes the magnetic field but how two magnets of identiclal shape and unequal strength attract an iron armature differently.
Two magnets with identical total magnetic field strengths:  M can have very different abilities with respect to picking up / holding soft iron pieces, IE your armatures.  By changing the winding permeability the field shape also changes.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 05:56:47 AM
Is not all the P/in disipated as heat in an inductor being supplied with a DC current?. I mean,it dosnt require power to maintain a magnetic field,as the field can do no useful work,and a PM dose not require any power input to maintain it's field.The resistance of the coil,and the amps to the coil tells us how much power we are using,so it's all accounted for.This means that it takes no power to create and maintain the actual magnetic field,as all power in is disipated as heat.
In a DC E/M where nothing is moving, any energy dissipated is in the coil resistance.  When an armature moves energy is conveyed to the armature, and that energy comes from the power supply.  The armature's movement induces a BEMF on the E/M's coil.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 06:00:25 AM
In fact,thinking about my last statement,i believe i can prove that a permanent magnet can/is doing useful work.

Want to run with me on this one MarkE?-work together on proving that a PM can/is doing useful work.

P.S-we can do it useing your very well loved physics. ;)
You are welcome to try.  But maybe this little piece of information will be helpful to you:

Given two identical solenoids, one with the armature held stationary and the other where the armature moves against a spring, if we exercise the coil with the unlocked armature and derive the rms current and then apply that rms current to the solenoid with the locked armature, the solenoid with the locked armature gets considerably hotter.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 21, 2015, 06:05:42 AM
What about a piezo disk stuck between two neos?  Will not the constant squeeze release some measurable output?

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 06:07:26 AM
You are welcome to try.  But maybe this little piece of information will be helpful to you:

Given two identical solenoids, one with the armature held stationary and the other where the armature moves against a spring, if we exercise the coil with the unlocked armature and derive the rms current and then apply that rms current to the solenoid with the locked armature, the solenoid with the locked armature gets considerably hotter.
Ok ,lets make this as simple as possable.
When we supply a DC current to a solenoid,is any of that input power used/consumed to create the magnetic field around that solenoid?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 06:12:09 AM
What about a piezo disk stuck between two neos?  Will not the constant squeeze release some measurable output?

Bill
If it was just a matter of a constant squeeze needed to produce a constant output,we could just sit a house brick on the piezo. The piezo requires an osscilating pressure to produce power.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 06:17:32 AM
Ok ,lets make this as simple as possable.
When we supply a DC current to a solenoid,is any of that input power used/consumed to create the magnetic field around that solenoid?
OK,i may have described this wrong by useing solenoid.
Lets make it an inductor insted to eliminate any moving parts that may impack on this thought experiment.

When a DC current is supplied to an inductor,is any of the input power consumed/used to create the magnetic field around that inductor,or is it all disipated as heat?.

2- Once the magnetic field around that inductor is astablished,dose it require any of the input power to that inductor to maintain that field,or is it all disipated as heat?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 06:20:37 AM
Two magnets with identical total magnetic field strengths:  M can have very different abilities with respect to picking up / holding soft iron pieces, IE your armatures.  By changing the winding permeability the field shape also changes.

TK's correct F=V/R. The obvious advantage to the steel windings is that even though it will take over 5x's the power to create an equal flux density as the copper, the steel windings will act as a permanent magnet after the power's disconnected. This could turn into a huge energy savings over time, depending on the VRM of the coil.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 06:24:50 AM
TK's correct F=V/R. The obvious advantage to the steel windings is that even though it will take over 5x's the power to create an equal flux density as the copper,
Al sounds great on paper,but i wonder if it is fact in the real world?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 06:33:35 AM
Al sounds great on paper,but i wonder if it is fact in the real world?.

Ed Leedskalnin tested these kinds of coils. A short reverse pulse would completely neutralize the permanent field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 07:08:00 AM
Ok ,lets make this as simple as possable.
When we supply a DC current to a solenoid,is any of that input power used/consumed to create the magnetic field around that solenoid?
Yes.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 07:10:52 AM
OK,i may have described this wrong by useing solenoid.
Lets make it an inductor insted to eliminate any moving parts that may impack on this thought experiment.

When a DC current is supplied to an inductor,is any of the input power consumed/used to create the magnetic field around that inductor,or is it all disipated as heat?.

2- Once the magnetic field around that inductor is astablished,dose it require any of the input power to that inductor to maintain that field,or is it all disipated as heat?
Every bit of energy that is in the magnetic field formed in and around the inductor is supplied by the power source that builds up the current / magnetic field. 2) Does not have a fixed answer.  Energy dissipated as heat is lost.  If there is no resistance, IE superconductor then there is no energy dissipated and lost.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 07:12:47 AM
TK's correct F=V/R. The obvious advantage to the steel windings is that even though it will take over 5x's the power to create an equal flux density as the copper, the steel windings will act as a permanent magnet after the power's disconnected. This could turn into a huge energy savings over time, depending on the VRM of the coil.
You could follow the same logic and argue for magnetizing hard magnetic material.  The fallacy is that you are looking at the magnets in terms of force and comparing that to continuously applied power.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: scotty1 on January 21, 2015, 07:14:57 AM
"I made a lot more electricity with my generator than I ever made with urine soaked cloth."
--Ned Leedskalnin

 :o :o :o
That quote by Ed Leedskalnin gets more weird everytime I see it written. We must be up to the 10,000th monkey by now.
Here is what he actually said about the iron wire.

Quote: "Maybe you think that it is not fair to use iron wire to demon-strate how magnetic currents are made, but I can tell you that if I do not use iron core in the coil I can make more of the magnetic currents with soft iron wire coil than I can with copper wire coil, so you see it is perfectly good to use iron wire to demonstrate how magnetic currents are made."
Edward Leedskalnin....Magnetic Currents.

Where on Earth those words about urine come from is a mystery.....maybe the 10,000th monkey needed a piss.... ;D
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 21, 2015, 07:29:10 AM
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on Today at 03:37:04 AM (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg433977/#msg433977)"I made a lot more electricity with my generator than I ever made with urine soaked cloth."
--Ned Leedskalnin
 :o :o :o

That quote by Ed Leedskalnin gets more weird everytime I see it written.

Where on Earth those words about urine come from is a mystery.....maybe the 10,000th monkey needed a piss.... ;D

That was actually a quote from Ed's weird brother Ned.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 07:35:08 AM
Time to look at the "Flux Switching Alternator":
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 08:39:40 AM
Every bit of energy that is in the magnetic field formed in and around the inductor is supplied by the power source that builds up the current / magnetic field. 2) Does not have a fixed answer.  Energy dissipated as heat is lost.  If there is no resistance, IE superconductor then there is no energy dissipated and lost.
1-OK,so you agree that it takes energy to create a magnetic field?
2-And do you agree that when the power to the inductor is abruptly disconected,the magnetic field gives back the power it took to create it?-the rest of the power of course was disipated as heat.

3- do you believe this to be true in all situation's-Quote: In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it can change form,
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 09:12:00 AM
This 4pdt switch connected to a 12volt battery could operate a solid state "Flux Switching Alternator". Two very very powerfull neo magnet flux stacks could be controlled by the tiny amount of switch cost. I wonder if anyone's ever thought about trying this?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 09:36:01 AM
Time to look at the "Flux Switching Alternator":
I have an alternator exactly like that one. It has a 12 volt,36 volt and 120 volt AC output.

Edit-looking at mine again,the coils are actually wound around the outside of the iron cores.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 09:37:59 AM
This 4pdt switch connected to a 12volt battery could operate a solid state "Flux Switching Alternator". Two very very powerfull neo magnet flux stacks could be controlled by the tiny amount of switch cost. I wonder if anyone's ever thought about trying this?
Sounds MEG to me.
Knowing how hard it is to pull a steel core away from a good neo,that little relay wont do the job-No where the pull force needed.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: synchro1 on January 21, 2015, 10:10:37 AM
Right, it would need 4 GAP style neutralization coils.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 10:52:09 AM
.
Time to look at the "Flux Switching Alternator":
There is also a solid state version of this principle in this patent (http://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/dlattach/attach/132523/).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 10:53:53 AM
In fact,thinking about my last statement, I believe i can prove that a permanent magnet can/is doing useful work.
Yes, you could prove that, but not over an integer number of cycles.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 10:54:05 AM
Right, it would need 4 GAP style neutralization coils.
It is funny synchro when you stand back,and take a look at everything that go's on around us. So many times here we have seen the scream of! DO YOU KNOW HOW TO TAKE CORRECT P?in AND P/out MESSUREMENTS!
If we simply say energy in and energy out are unity,then all the arguments go away. Any device you build run's at both a minimum and maximum of 100%-unity-->when all energy out is messured,it will equal exactly the energy in.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 10:56:59 AM
What about a piezo disk stuck between two neos?  Will not the constant squeeze release some measurable output?
Yes, at the expense of the energy needed to drive the piezo.
You can also achieve a similar result using the Villiari effect in a ferrite rod.  See this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM).

Also, remember that those piezo disks extend flexurally like in Fig.3a and Fig.3b  (somehow most people are wrongly convinced that they extend as in Fig.2).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 10:59:56 AM
Tinman:

From the discussions that have taken place in this thread, is it safe to assume that you are getting the concept that the magnetic pull force attraction on a small iron test piece and the strength of the magnetic field itself are two separate things?  I am assuming that you either get that or are coming around to start to understand that.

So, this is going to be my "Revenge of the Nerds - Bench Version" posting discussing more interesting stuff that you can do on your bench.

First of all, a quick recap of measuring the magnetic field strength of the coils using a hypothetical example to illustrate the process.  We are assuming that you have two identical coils, one made with copper wire and the other one made with iron wire.  The assumption is that the copper wire coil produces a stronger external magnetic field for the same current flow because there is no field trapped inside the wire like you have for the iron wire case.

Very importantly, I am going to assume that you have a digital voltmeter with at least three digits of precision.  If you don't have one with three digits of precision then you can't do this test.

So you have your coil under test in the magnetic field strength measurement setup using the compass as was previously described.  This is all set up at the center of a wooden table.   Between your power supply and the coil you have about two feet of interconnect wire.  The wire is a tight twisted pair and like Mark says, you have at least three twists per inch.   You have a current sensing resistor next to the bench power supply.

So for the copper coil, let's say you measure 0.873 volts across the current sensing resistor to make the compass needle deflect exactly 45 degrees.

Now you swap out the copper coil for the iron coil.  You dial up your power supply voltage to see 0.873 volts across the current sensing resistor.  You look at the compass needle and this time it is deflecting about 42 degrees.

So that is telling you that the copper coil is producing a stronger external magnetic field than the iron coil for the same current flow.  This makes sense because the assumption is that the iron wire itself is "stealing" some of the magnetic flux that would normally be in the 3D space around the coil.

Next post will be the "Nerds Part 2."

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 11:26:37 AM
When we supply a DC current to a solenoid,is any of that input power used/consumed to create the magnetic field around that solenoid?
Yes.  In an ideal solenoid all of the input energy is used to create the magnetic field around that solenoid, and in a resistive solenoid some of the input energy is used to create the magnetic field.  See here (http://overunity.com/15095/pulse-motor-build-off-time/msg427460/#msg427460).

This means that it takes no power to create and maintain the actual magnetic field,as all power in is dissipated as heat.
No, it takes energy to create a magnetic field even in an ideal coil.
Also, not all of the energy delivered by the power supply is dissipated as heat in the resistance.  See here (http://overunity.com/15095/pulse-motor-build-off-time/msg427460/#msg427460).

2- Once the magnetic field around that inductor is established, does it require any of the input power to that inductor to maintain that field, or is it all dissipated as heat?
If the inductor is ideal, then no energy input to that inductor is required, in order to maintain its field.
If the inductor is resistive then yes, energy input is required to make up for the energy dissipated in the resistance as heat.
Resistance constitutes an energy leak in an inductor's circuit.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 11:27:08 AM
Revenge of the Nerds - Bench Edition, Part 2:

I think you mentioned in your younger days you had a muscle car.  There is a good chance you added an instrument cluster that included real analog gages: water temperature, oil temperature, oil pressure, battery voltage, and battery charge/discharge amps.

In North America we call the simple indicator lights that do these functions "idiot lights" and I assume that it's the same in Australia.

So, many experimenters will buy a digital inductance meter.  How did people survive before digital inductance meters?  We are going to call the digital inductance meter an "idiot box."   So for this test there will be no inductance meter idiot box.

The assumption is that the iron wire coil has a greater inductance than the copper coil.  It stands to reason because the iron wire in many ways is simply acting like a ferrite core, where the ferrite core and the wire are one in the same thing.   And it's also interesting because at first glance it seems counter-intuitive - the coil with the larger inductance has the smaller strength of external magnetic field.  Normally it's not the case - a larger inductor will have a stronger external magnetic field.

So here is the nerd revenge challenge:  Without using the idiot box, measure the inductance for the copper coil and the iron coil and see it it is indeed true that the iron coil has the larger inductance.

If you or anybody takes up the challenge, you are on your own.  I am not helping at all.  Hey, it's up to other people if they want to help anybody that takes up the challenge.  Or perhaps a few experimenters will work together and brainstorm and try to come up with a procedure to make the measurement all by themselves.

One thing I can tell you is it is certainly doable, and there are probably(?) multiple ways to do it.

You like to bash the book nerds and say "It's all real on the bench and screw your egghead books?"  (I am saying this in jest.)  Okay then go for it and show us your stuff.  On your bench with your standard bench instruments and with your wits and possibly with help from your peers or even a nice nerd, measure the inductance of your two coils.  Put your money where your mouth is and make it real on the bench.  The bench is where it counts...

You are not going to get any hints from me!  Not even bread crumbs!

MileHigh

P.S.:  On a more serious note if you actually took up the challenge and got your results you will learn 10 times more than you would learn on yet another thread about building yet another pulse motor configuration.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 11:33:19 AM
1-OK,so you agree that it takes energy to create a magnetic field?
Yes
Quote
2-And do you agree that when the power to the inductor is abruptly disconected,the magnetic field gives back the power it took to create it?-the rest of the power of course was disipated as heat.
"Gives back" is a bit ambiguous.  The energy in the magnetic field is not destroyed.  If the circuit is not arranged to reclaim most of the energy, then most will be dissipated as heat when trying to establish the voltage that will ultimately be across the disconnect, and some will radiate away.
Quote

3- do you believe this to be true in all situation's-Quote: In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it can change form,
Conservation of mass/energy is very fundamental.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 21, 2015, 11:45:01 AM
Quote
2-And do you agree that when the power to the inductor is abruptly disconected,the magnetic field gives back the power it took to create it?-the rest of the power of course was disipated as heat.

My take on it is this:  First of all it's "give back the energy" not "give back the power."  It's very important here to draw this distinction.

You are basically talking about the so-called "back-EMF spike" in a Bedini motor here.  I will call it a pulse of current associated with the inductor discharging its stored energy.

To say that the back-EMF spike is "pure voltage with almost no current" like you know who, so-called "radiant energy," is basically an insane statement.  By definition it's a pulse of current.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 11:49:30 AM
2-And do you agree that when the power to the inductor is abruptly disconnected,the magnetic field gives back the power it took to create it?-the rest of the power of course was dissipated as heat.
Yes, but you have to be more precise when you write "give back".  For example, the energy stored in an inductor's magnetic field can be discharged into a capacitor.  Also, it is not necessary for an inductor to be abruptly disconnected from a power supply, for this to happen, because current can circulate in an inductor without the power supply being connected at all (as in a shorted coil).

During the time while the energy is being transferred from the inductor to the capacitor, the evil resistance (if any) continues to dissipate your precious energy.  Thus it is advantageous to keep this transfer time as short as possible.

This recovery scenario was described here (http://overunity.com/15095/pulse-motor-build-off-time/msg427461/#msg427461).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 12:33:21 PM
Yes, but you have to be more precise when you write "give back".  For example, the energy stored in an inductor's magnetic field can be discharged into a capacitor. 
During the time while the energy is being transferred from the inductor to the capacitor, the evil resistance (if any) continues to dissipate your precious energy.  Thus it is advantageous to keep this transfer time as short as possible.

This recovery scenario was described here (http://overunity.com/15095/pulse-motor-build-off-time/msg427461/#msg427461).
Should i say that the energy stored within the magnetic field is converted into another form when the magnetic field collapses. This conversion is 100% of the stored energy within the magnetic field.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 12:37:08 PM
With an ideal inductor discharged into an ideal capacitor - yes
...and if you count the heat dissipated in a resistance as just another form of energy, then the answer is yes even for non-ideal inductors.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 12:43:06 PM
Edit after verpies edit.
Cool,so all energy is accounted for when the field collapses ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 12:51:02 PM
Yes, you could prove that, but not over an integer number of cycles.
How about just one continual cycle?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 12:55:08 PM
How about just one continual cycle?
The same.  One is also an integer number.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 12:56:10 PM
My take on it is this:  First of all it's "give back the energy" not "give back the power."  It's very important here to draw this distinction.

You are basically talking about the so-called "back-EMF spike" in a Bedini motor here.  I will call it a pulse of current associated with the inductor discharging its stored energy.

To say that the back-EMF spike is "pure voltage with almost no current" like you know who, so-called "radiant energy," is basically an insane statement.  By definition it's a pulse of current.
We have now switch to energy in and energy out to cover all bases. ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 01:00:36 PM
The same.  One is also an integer number.
Please clarify.
If a hot piece of steel is giving of heat as it cool's,it is doing useful work.Then once it has cooled to ambiant temperature,no more useful work is being done,and all energy has been disipated as heat. Is this one cycle?-or the integer number of cycles you state cannot be shown?.
Im a little lost here with this fancy talk-can we switch to human language? ???
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 01:08:49 PM
Please clarify.
If a hot piece of steel is giving of heat as it cool's,it is doing useful work.Then once it has cooled to ambiant temperature,no more useful work is being done,and all energy has been disipated as heat. Is this one cycle?
No, that's half a cycle.  The other half is heating up this steel to get back to the starting point.
For a full cycle you always have to get back to the starting point, regardless whether that point represents position, temperature, pressure, speed, flux, charge, etc...

Im a little lost here with this fancy talk-can we switch to human language? ???
No. First of all, I am human and secondly the common talk is good for picking up common girls but is too imprecise for science.
For example, the common talk often confuses mass with force and power with energy and change with rate of change, etc... where the distinctions between them can be very significant.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 01:12:31 PM
1-So we agree that energy cannot be created or destroyed-only transformed.

2-It dose take energy to create a magnetic field.

3-All of that energy from the magnetic field is transformed when the magnetic field gives up it's energy.

OK-next question.
We charge a capacitor,say a 10 000uf electrolitic capacitor ,and we charge it up to 12 volt's-from zero volt's-->just incase the question should arise. ;D

1-The energy taken to charge that cap to 12 volts is more than the stored energy in that cap after it is charged to the 12 volts-correct? What has that extra energy (over the now stored energy in the cap)been transformed into?-heat?.

2- The cap is leaky,and the stored energy in the cap is slowly being discharged. What is the slowly discharging energy being transformed into?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 01:14:23 PM
No, that's half a cycle.  The other half is heating up this steel to get back to the starting point.
For a full cycle you always have to get back to the starting point, regardless whether that point represents position, temperature, pressure, speed, flux, charge, etc...
OK,but we are talking about stored energy doing useful work as that stored energy is being disipated.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 01:22:47 PM
1-So we agree that energy cannot be created or destroyed-only transformed.
Yes, but some will argue, that it depends on how large you draw the proverbial box ;)

2-It dose take energy to create a magnetic field.
3-All of that energy from the magnetic field is transformed when the magnetic field gives up it's energy.
Yes

We charge a capacitor,say a 10 000uf electrolitic capacitor ,and we charge it up to 12 volt's-from zero volt's-->just incase the question should arise. ;D

1-The energy taken to charge that cap to 12 volts is more than the stored energy in that cap after it is charged to the 12 volts-correct?
No, it is the same if there was no resistance in the circuit during the charging process.

What has that extra energy (over the now stored energy in the cap) been transformed into?-heat?.
Yes and/or radio waves.

2- The cap is leaky,and the stored energy in the cap is slowly being discharged. What is the slowly discharging energy being transformed into?.
Heat in the leakage resistance....also the dielectric soak in some types of capacitors...but most of the PP pulse capacitors don't suffer from this imperfection.  Nowadays, they can be made nearly ideal.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 01:24:50 PM
OK,but we are talking about stored energy doing useful work as that stored energy is being disipated.
Yes, the stored energy (in e.g. capacitor or inductor) can do net work over non-integer number of cycles.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 01:31:21 PM
Yes
Yes and/or radio waves.
Quote
Yes, but some will say that it depends how large you draw the proverbial box ;)
What we want to do is prove that a PM can do useful work,as most say it cant.

Quote
No, it is the same if there was no resistance in the circuit during the charging process.
This is good to know.Learn something new every day. When i heard those in the know say that charging capacitors was lossey,i thought it was to do with the capacitor itself.

Quote
Heat in the leakage resistance....also the dielectric soak in some types of capacitors...but most of the PP pulse capacitors don't suffer from this.  They are nearly ideal.
So if heat is being produced,then useful work is being done?-and the energy is not lost?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 01:43:21 PM
So if heat is being produced,then useful work is being done?-and the energy is not lost?
If you don't treat the low grade heat generated by the resistance as a loss, then you are correct.
...however entropy still increases even if energy is not being "lost".

What we want to do is prove that a PM can do useful work
I don't think that you need to prove that over non-integer number of cycles, because it is widely known that magnets can do non-zero work in that scenario.
Hoever, if you want to prove that magnets can do the same over integer number of cycles, than you are welcomed to try.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 01:49:21 PM
If you don't treat the low grade heat generated by the resistance as a loss, then you are correct.
...however entropy still increases even if energy is not being "lost".
I don't think that you need to prove that over non-integer number of cycles, because it is widely known that magnets can do non-zero work in that scenario.
Hoever, if you want to prove that magnets can do the same over integer number of cycles, than you are welcomed to try.
Im still not quite sure these cycles apply here. If we discharge the stored energy in a capacitor through say and LED,then has not that half cycle done useful work?

And why were on the subject of stored energy,do you think that a permanent magnet is an energy storage device/medium?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 01:55:40 PM
What we want to do is prove that a PM can do useful work,as most say it cant.
It is both a simple and daunting task:  Show an energy balance where more work comes out of a machine built with a magnet than goes in, and show that it is the magnet that supplies that energy.
Quote
This is good to know.Learn something new every day. When i heard those in the know say that charging capacitors was lossey,i thought it was to do with the capacitor itself.
It is and it isn't.  If you charge a capacitor by connecting to a hard voltage source or a hard voltage source through a resistor, then it takes 2X energy.  If you charge it through an ideal inductor and ideal switch and the capacitor is ideal then it takes 1.0X.  In real life you can get to 1.01X with some effort.
Quote
So if heat is being produced,then useful work is being done?-and the energy is not lost?
If heating the room is your goal, then yes.  If it is not, then not so much.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 21, 2015, 01:57:54 PM
Im still not quite sure these cycles apply here. If we discharge the stored energy in a capacitor through say and LED,then has not that half cycle done useful work?
It is.  But that is just part of a cycle.
Quote

And why were on the subject of stored energy,do you think that a permanent magnet is an energy storage device/medium?.
Of course it is.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 21, 2015, 02:03:29 PM
Im still not quite sure these cycles apply here. If we discharge the stored energy in a capacitor through say and LED,then has not that half cycle done useful work?
Yes, but it's not free energy because this capacitor must have been charged in the first half of the cycle.
The out/in energy ratio which is the basis of efficiency calculation, must be calculated over an integer number of cycles.

And why were on the subject of stored energy,do you think that a permanent magnet is an energy storage device/medium?.
Yes, because the magnetizing machine (a hefty coil) has injected energy into the magnet while magnetizing its unpolarized hard ferromagnetic sintered powder (or alloy) in the factory.  The sintered powder 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 21, 2015, 02:12:21 PM
Quote
Yes, but it's not free energy because this capacitor must have been charged in the first half of the cycle.
No-where not after free energy here,we just want to show a permanent magnet doing useful work.

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.
Truly excellent ;)
Now we just have to put all this together.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies 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".
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian 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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: wattsup 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

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks 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.

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: minnie on January 21, 2015, 06:54:41 PM



   Sounds like Super conducting magnetic energy storage.
            John.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: NoBull 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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 21, 2015, 07:49:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRby1Wilv-Q
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 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
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 22, 2015, 01:25:27 AM
.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2015, 02:50:01 AM
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
The energy increases without bound as: 0.5*V2*T2/L
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 22, 2015, 05:19:46 AM
Just for fun and a reminder:  The challenge is out there to any of you to take a copper-wire coil and a physically identical iron-wire coil and measure the inductance for each coil without using an idiot box.  Just use your brains and the standard bench equipment that most of you have.  This is the Revenge of the Nerds - Bench Version.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 22, 2015, 01:36:47 PM
For the same reason that it takes energy to accelerate a mass, but in the absence of friction none to maintain the mass' velocity.Yep.
So were kicking the football in space.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 22, 2015, 01:55:51 PM
So were kicking the football in space.
We are noting that there are other physical phenomena where it takes energy to change a state and once the state is changed additional energy is not required to maintain the new state:

Changing the kinetic energy of a mass in  frictionless environment.
Changing the electrostatic energy of a leakage free capacitor.
Changing the gravitational potential energy of an orbiting satellite in a frictionless environment.
Changing the gravitational potential of fluid in a reservoir that doesn't overflow.
Changing the bonding energy in molecules by way of an oxidation-reduction reaction.
Changing the magnetic field of a hard permanent magnet past its saturation point.
Changing the magnetic field of a superconducting electro magnet.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 22, 2015, 02:08:01 PM
I often use the analogy of a flywheel for an inductor.  Since a flywheel is just mass in motion, then linear motion (like a football or a glider moving down an air track) is also a perfectly valid analogy for an inductor.

When you think of discharging an inductor it normally just loses all of its stored energy, end of story.  So if you can imagine that the glider on the air track crashes into a lump of putty at the end of the track so there is no bounce-back, that's like a discharging inductor.  The putty will get hot from absorbing the crash energy just like the resistor will get hot.

The second attached graphic shows an air track set up to act like an LC resonator.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 22, 2015, 02:11:00 PM
It's like air hockey for nerds!  lol
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 22, 2015, 02:24:37 PM
 Sparks
Quote





  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.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


Sparks
I like that !!
Your contributions and observations  always give pause. And this simple concept (ringing the magnetic field ??). Well that's as good an explanation as any for what Ed was doing with magnetism.


An more specific ideas on testing this ,or is a short a short ?
Thx
Chet




Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 22, 2015, 02:27:16 PM
And to be really really hard core nerdy, the lump of putty at the end of the air track is actually a poor analogy for a resistor.

The real mechanical analogy for a resistor is a "damper."   The attached picture is not exactly what I am talking about but close enough.  When the glider hits the damper, the plunger forces oil through a narrow gap.  This will create resistance that is directly proportional to the glider speed.  So at high glider speeds you have high resistance.  At low glider speeds you have low resistance.

What falls out from this is as the glider slows down the resistance to the glider movement progressively decreases.  That means that the glider actually never stops moving because at very very low speeds the resistance is very very low.  So the glider eventually slows down to the point where you can't see it moving with your naked eye, but in fact it is still moving and never comes to a complete stop.

The wonderful world of physics!
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 23, 2015, 12:44:22 AM
Well, I am going to "call" EMJunkie/Chris' transformer project.  Earlier in this thread his limitations with respect to electronics were clearly shown.  There is no rational reason for his proposed setup to work.  He has no measurements to show.  It's all just a waste of time, as surely as there is no Bloch wall at the center of a magnet.

It's nothing more than a "transformer play," just like Bill Alek and countless others have made transformer plays.  With respect to free energy, a transformer is as dead as a proverbial doornail.

I think he believes it himself.  That doesn't matter, and it doesn't make a damn difference.  It's a case of leading yourself down a garden path and then assuming a "teaching/prophet" role.  The suggestion from him that you dispense with those pesky measurements for the time being is simply ridiculous.  It's also an insult to anyone that is truly interested in what he has to say.

Why?  Why?  Whhhhhhyyy?    Bahwababababaaa!!!!  <snif>
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 23, 2015, 12:56:54 AM
"The nation that controls magnetism will control the world."

--Al Cap...of Dick Tracy fame.


"Measuring it wood be the hard part."

Cap-Z-ro

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 23, 2015, 01:36:56 AM
Tinman:

Just a serious note about the resolution of the big discussion.  You kept on harping about how you work on the bench and the experiments on the bench give you the real deal.  Many times you scoffed at the idea of learning stuff in books.  As a side note you may have seen me post a few times that a while back I made a rough estimate of my lifetime bench experience and it is about 4500 hours.  It's not a small amount of time, and it's not a huge amount of time compared to some others.

You have been experimenting for perhaps three or four years now.  You have probably done hundreds of experiments related to magnetic fields in one form or the other.  And yet, it's pretty evident that the whole time you have been doing your experiments you clearly did not fully understand magnetic fields when you did these experiments.  Sometimes that may have tripped you up, other times not.  You did not understand magnetic field strength vs. magnetic field gradient as it relates to pulling force.  I think you still struggle with north-south vs. the fact that there is no actual north and south.  The experiment to compare copper wire vs. iron wire was a comedy of errors on both sides of the debate.

So the lesson from this, and it's an important lesson, is that you have to combine bench experiments with practical theory.  It's simply too easy to think you know what you are doing when in fact you don't know what you are doing.  Every forum experimenter needs to take that lesson from this debate.

I mentioned Jason Verbelli on the Searl thread.  About a year and a half ago I got into a debate with him on one of his YouTube clips where he was playing with magnets and his magnetic viewing film.  It quickly became apparent to me that he was totally clueless about magnetics, not even functioning at a grade 8 level.  He rejected everything I told him.  He used the magnetic viewing film without even knowing what it was telling him, and without even asking himself if he understood how the film worked.  All that he did was look at the patterns in the film and interpret that as "confirmation" of what he was thinking.  Now Jason "works" at "Searl Magnetics" (or whatever they are called) in San Diego.  I am willing to bet you he is still just as clueless and Fernando tasks him with things to do but he never actually tells Jason that he does not really understand magnetic fields.  Like I sometimes say, that's like it's a scene right out of the move Dr. Strangelove.

I remember a few years back discussing ideal inductors and ideal capacitors to try to explain things to people.  Did I ever get push-back and derision and flack hurled at me when I did that.  I was made to feel like I was an idiot.  I see that nothing like this happened from anyone in this debate, and that's a real sign of progress.

So again, theory plus bench experience - that's the best way to go forward.  The motivation for stating this on my part is two-fold.  Firstly, it's so experimenters can simply better themselves and and get more out of their experiments.  Secondly, it's to make it a more hostile environment for the criminals out there that want to take advantage of people.  I can tell you an example.  I have looked at clips from those Aaron/Bedini conferences that take place every year.  I have seen Bedini standing in the center of a group of grown men saying the most ridiculous nonsense, so ridiculous I almost want to scream.  The grown men standing around him are at rapt attention, as if they are in the presence of a great man.  There is something wrong with that picture.

The more informed people get, the better off they are, and the more difficult it will be for criminals to operate in their midst.  That's the hope at least.

I didn't mean to fry you on a skillet here.  We just had a big debate, I think that you along with many other people learned some new stuff and perhaps your attitude has changed a bit also but I don't want to put words in your mouth.  I just think that it's important to say some of these things.  I don't know everything and I don't claim to know everything.  But I do know some things and I trust my knowledge and instincts to tell me when I am seeing criminal fraud.  Making life more difficult for criminals and perhaps saving people from parting with their money is what I like to do.  That's my "working on the bench."

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 23, 2015, 01:47:49 AM
*cancels cheque to Tinman*

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 23, 2015, 01:56:59 AM
*cancels cheque to Tinman*

What is that supposed to mean?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: scotty1 on January 23, 2015, 11:32:20 AM
Well that paragraph about Jason Verbelli made my day!!! hahaha...... ;D
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2015, 01:11:28 PM
Well that paragraph about Jason Verbelli made my day!!! hahaha...... ;D
Progress at Swallow Command seems very slow.  Back in 2008 or 2009 as I recall the Searlites were supposedly just a few months away from reproducing a working SEG.  Maybe they did and it worked so well that time itself is dilating around the machine only making it appear that it is a useless contraption of rattling rollers.  Has anyone seen any evidence of overunity, or even efficient motor operation from the "we've got some whoppers for people to Swallow Command"?  Has anyone seen any evidence of antigravity effects?  Have the Searlites been able to make anything rise even an inch off the table, much less fly through the ceiling?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 23, 2015, 02:35:00 PM
It feels like you can design and build a nuclear aircraft carrier in less time than the Searl gang takes to do anything.  All they have is a prop for shows and video clips after eight years of "mainstream" presence on YouTube and the Internet.  It's amazing how long some of these people can string things along.  Between Steorn, the Searl gang, the Rohner gang, and Wayne's Brains gang you probably have something like 100 man-years of "R&D" and nothing at all to show for it except for a few props that could be constructed with a few man-months of labour.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: CANGAS on January 23, 2015, 02:40:22 PM
"The nation that controls magnetism will control the world."

--Al Cap...of Dick Tracy fame.


"Measuring it wood be the hard part."

Cap-Z-ro

Regards...


Huh?

 Al Cap? Al Cap was a character, in the early years of the strip, 70 or 80 years ago, inspired by Al Capone, the famous gangster. You may have been thinking of Al Capp, who drew the comic strip Li'l Abner (Southern for LiTTle Abner). Dick Tracy comic strip was drawn by Chester Gould.

Quote
.....controls magnetism.....
was uttered by the character Diet Smith, the wealthy industrialist. Or was just a disembodied voice-over.

Pffft! You may be an impeccable magnetics expert, but you sure don't know your comic strips!  ::)


CANGAS 134
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 23, 2015, 02:55:51 PM
@MH
Quote
So again, theory plus bench experience - that's the best way
to go forward.  The motivation for stating this on my part is two-fold. 
Firstly, it's so experimenters can simply better themselves and and get more out
of their experiments.  Secondly, it's to make it a more hostile environment for
the criminals out there that want to take advantage of people.

We walk a fine line and I find it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff many times because of the lack of meaningful facts. As well this forum can be peculiar and I have been accused of being a philosopher at times as if that were somehow a bad thing, lol. My theory is simple, I ask the hard questions and test my theories at the bench when possible so I might understand things in a more meaningful way on a deeper level. This is not strictly philosophy it is critical thinking or deductive reasoning and experiment to better understand the true nature of our observations which is defined as science.

It is odd that the more I understand the what, why and when at the most fundamental level the more I see the laws we know being applied however not in the way we would expect. Not unlike the DWFTTW scenario which is perfectly normal once understood however in no way intuitive which led to a great deal of confusion. There were many people trying to protect other people from this supposed hoax which defied science and common sense, which was later proven to be true. I believe we are going to see more of this in the future as our understanding evolves and small groups of brilliant people will move forward by leaps and bounds leaving everyone else behind scratching their heads. Multi-spectrum solar cells are a good example with efficiencies possibly approaching 70% efficiency in the near future.--http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html.

As a so-called philosopher I knew this multi-spectrum tech was coming over a decade ago because it is the logical progression of the technology. Just as I know the future of it which is integration of nano-technology capturing massive swaths of the EM spectrum well outside the visible light spectrum. Think about that?... how much energy is actually there?... I would guess we will see a 1 m^2 panel generating near 2 Kw within 30-40 years. All the pieces of technology are already present and really all they have to do is put them together. Now if we step outside the box for a second we might also say any device which could capture the energy in large sections of the EM spectrum would also act very similar to the multi-spectrum solar cells. It is not a matter of if but a matter of how and I think we will see some very interesting technology surface in the near future.

AC
 
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2015, 03:33:31 PM
@MH
We walk a fine line and I find it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff many times because of the lack of meaningful facts. As well this forum can be peculiar and I have been accused of being a philosopher at times as if that were somehow a bad thing, lol. My theory is simple, I ask the hard questions and test my theories at the bench when possible so I might understand things in a more meaningful way on a deeper level. This is not strictly philosophy it is critical thinking or deductive reasoning and experiment to better understand the true nature of our observations which is defined as science.

It is odd that the more I understand the what, why and when at the most fundamental level the more I see the laws we know being applied however not in the way we would expect. Not unlike the DWFTTW scenario which is perfectly normal once understood however in no way intuitive which led to a great deal of confusion. There were many people trying to protect other people from this supposed hoax which defied science and common sense, which was later proven to be true.
What science did the DWFTTW defy? 
Quote
I believe we are going to see more of this in the future as our understanding evolves and small groups of brilliant people will move forward by leaps and bounds leaving everyone else behind scratching their heads. Multi-spectrum solar cells are a good example with efficiencies possibly approaching 70% efficiency in the near future.--http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html.
III-V multijunction cells have been used for many years in applications where efficiency is more important than economy, such as satellites.
Quote

As a so-called philosopher I knew this multi-spectrum tech was coming over a decade ago because it is the logical progression of the technology. Just as I know the future of it which is integration of nano-technology capturing massive swaths of the EM spectrum well outside the visible light spectrum. Think about that?... how much energy is actually there?... I would guess we will see a 1 m^2 panel generating near 2 Kw within 30-40 years.
Well then you are expencting overunity because incident radiation is well below 2kW/m2 even in the best locations.
Quote
All the pieces of technology are already present and really all they have to do is put them together. Now if we step outside the box for a second we might also say any device which could capture the energy in large sections of the EM spectrum would also act very similar to the multi-spectrum solar cells. It is not a matter of if but a matter of how and I think we will see some very interesting technology surface in the near future.
Thre is constantly new and amazing technology emerging.  So far its a big no go on energy from a new, clean, and ubiquitous source.
Quote

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 23, 2015, 03:38:56 PM
AC
Some are inclined towards this view already,
Antenna  that can harvest more than their fair share....

 Graham Maynard's work
http://bovan.net/gmweb2/The%20FS%20Loop.htm (http://bovan.net/gmweb2/The%20FS%20Loop.htm)




Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 23, 2015, 04:18:24 PM
   If I wrap a coil of wire around one end of a long steel cable and an identical coil on the opposite end of the cable does it take time for the other end of the cable to become magnetized to the point that it will induce a current in the far end coil, when the primary coil is energised?. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2015, 04:45:33 PM
   If I wrap a coil of wire around one end of a long steel cable and an identical coil on the opposite end of the cable does it take time for the other end of the cable to become magnetized to the point that it will induce a current in the far end coil, when the primary coil is energised?.
There are two time delaying effects:  Propagation of the electromagnetic wavefront, which is a matter of ns per meter, and the magnetic viscosity of the domains in the steel cable which can be on the order of milliseconds depending on the particular steel.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 23, 2015, 05:21:22 PM
@Mark
Quote
Thre is constantly new and amazing technology emerging.  So far its a big no go on energy from a new, clean, and ubiquitous source.


So far you have not told me anything I didn't already know years ago. I think this google-rebuttle-debate is interesting but is seems kind of pointless in my opinion. If your not moving forward your moving backward, there is no static position in evolution nor understanding it is relative.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 23, 2015, 05:55:21 PM
@Mark

So far you have not told me anything I didn't already know years ago. I think this google-rebuttle-debate is interesting but is seems kind of pointless in my opinion. If your not moving forward your moving backward, there is no static position in evolution nor understanding it is relative.


AC
There has been lots of motion but no forward movement that I have seen in free energy.  Perhaps you could point to actual progress over any time frame that you like.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 23, 2015, 06:31:24 PM
"Motion"=payoffs and just plain 'offing'.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 10:14:27 AM
What polarity(field) is an EMP from a neuclear explosion?-north or south field?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 10:51:37 AM
Tinman:

Just a serious note about the resolution of the big discussion.  You kept on harping about how you work on the bench and the experiments on the bench give you the real deal.  Many times you scoffed at the idea of learning stuff in books.  As a side note you may have seen me post a few times that a while back I made a rough estimate of my lifetime bench experience and it is about 4500 hours.  It's not a small amount of time, and it's not a huge amount of time compared to some others.

You have been experimenting for perhaps three or four years now.  You have probably done hundreds of experiments related to magnetic fields in one form or the other.  And yet, it's pretty evident that the whole time you have been doing your experiments you clearly did not fully understand magnetic fields when you did these experiments.  Sometimes that may have tripped you up, other times not.  You did not understand magnetic field strength vs. magnetic field gradient as it relates to pulling force.  I think you still struggle with north-south vs. the fact that there is no actual north and south.  The experiment to compare copper wire vs. iron wire was a comedy of errors on both sides of the debate.

So the lesson from this, and it's an important lesson, is that you have to combine bench experiments with practical theory.  It's simply too easy to think you know what you are doing when in fact you don't know what you are doing.  Every forum experimenter needs to take that lesson from this debate.

I mentioned Jason Verbelli on the Searl thread.  About a year and a half ago I got into a debate with him on one of his YouTube clips where he was playing with magnets and his magnetic viewing film.  It quickly became apparent to me that he was totally clueless about magnetics, not even functioning at a grade 8 level.  He rejected everything I told him.  He used the magnetic viewing film without even knowing what it was telling him, and without even asking himself if he understood how the film worked.  All that he did was look at the patterns in the film and interpret that as "confirmation" of what he was thinking.  Now Jason "works" at "Searl Magnetics" (or whatever they are called) in San Diego.  I am willing to bet you he is still just as clueless and Fernando tasks him with things to do but he never actually tells Jason that he does not really understand magnetic fields.  Like I sometimes say, that's like it's a scene right out of the move Dr. Strangelove.

I remember a few years back discussing ideal inductors and ideal capacitors to try to explain things to people.  Did I ever get push-back and derision and flack hurled at me when I did that.  I was made to feel like I was an idiot.  I see that nothing like this happened from anyone in this debate, and that's a real sign of progress.

So again, theory plus bench experience - that's the best way to go forward.  The motivation for stating this on my part is two-fold.  Firstly, it's so experimenters can simply better themselves and and get more out of their experiments.  Secondly, it's to make it a more hostile environment for the criminals out there that want to take advantage of people.  I can tell you an example.  I have looked at clips from those Aaron/Bedini conferences that take place every year.  I have seen Bedini standing in the center of a group of grown men saying the most ridiculous nonsense, so ridiculous I almost want to scream.  The grown men standing around him are at rapt attention, as if they are in the presence of a great man.  There is something wrong with that picture.

The more informed people get, the better off they are, and the more difficult it will be for criminals to operate in their midst.  That's the hope at least.

I didn't mean to fry you on a skillet here.  We just had a big debate, I think that you along with many other people learned some new stuff and perhaps your attitude has changed a bit also but I don't want to put words in your mouth.  I just think that it's important to say some of these things.  I don't know everything and I don't claim to know everything.  But I do know some things and I trust my knowledge and instincts to tell me when I am seeing criminal fraud.  Making life more difficult for criminals and perhaps saving people from parting with their money is what I like to do.  That's my "working on the bench."

MileHigh
MH
If i know so little,and you know so much with your 4500 hours benchwork and book's,then how is it i had to correct you about the single coil v the two coils-1 either side of the magnet?.

It's funny how things work some time's. Since i have been with my current employer,we have been through about 7 mechanics-6 hopeless,and 1 absolutely brilliant-but he decided to go on a trip around our wonderfull country. Funny thing was,that the guy that was really good at the job,was also the only one out of the 7 that wasnt trade qualified-all hands on only.

So here in lies the problem-im simply not interested in learning theories that i dont believe are correct. If i did that,then i would be heading down the same dead end you guy's are-no advancement-and still no idea as to what the hell a magnetic field actually is after that wonderfull 200 years. Same go's with gravity-the best they have is-->gravity sucks,a mass attracts another mass-->well thats helpfull.

We come to these forums to look for something different-not to be taught the same old same old that has gone no where in 200 years. Sure we have tweeked things a little here and there,but you only have to look at the ICE to see how far we havnt gone since the steam engine. It also seems that the big guns arnt interested in improving much on the ICE-you only have to look at the valve system to see that. Take a standard inline 6 cylider-2 valves per cylinder.
A list of the moving parts
12 valve springs
12 valves
24 spring retainers
1 camshaft
12 rocker arms
12 lifters
12 pushrods if it's not OHC
All this takes around 3HP out of your engine.

At the age of 19,i designed and built an engine that used only 1 moving part to do the same job as all that crap above-oh,and it required about .2 of a HP to drive,and even though i had a working prototype to show,do you think anyone was interested in it?-no,no and no.

I have a thread going else where about a gravity/buoyant device that puts out more energy than it consumes-(by the book),and do you think any interest has been shown in that?-->there is one other person giving an input-thats it. ::)

I simply have no faith in current science and physics taking us any further than they have,and i believe that we will go no further until we throw the theories away,and start looking for the real deal here.

So once again-im not here to learn the same old shit that the books of 200 year ago have to offer--they just simply dont have the answers we seek. Did the guys that supposedly came up with all this stuff have book's to learn from?--nope,they did it all on the bench. ;)

New discoveries are not found in old book's.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 11:23:20 AM
What polarity(field) is an EMP from a neuclear explosion?-north or south field?.
Do you think nuclear explosions are solenoidal?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 11:24:25 AM

The real mechanical analogy for a resistor is a "damper."   

The wonderful world of physics!
The real mechanical analogy for a resistor would be a slipping clutch. Heaps of power from the engine getting turned into heat,and not transfered to the load(the car).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 11:26:36 AM
Do you think nuclear explosions are solenoidal?
I dont think much of them at all,it was a legit question-but once again Mark,just answered with another question.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 11:29:21 AM
The real mechanical analogy for a resistor would be a slipping clutch. Heaps of power from the engine getting turned into heat,and not transfered to the load(the car).
Both are decent analogies to resistance.  One is using the rheology of the fluid forced through the aperture to resist flow.  The other uses sliding friction to resist rotation.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 24, 2015, 11:44:07 AM
I simply have no faith in current science and physics taking us any further than they have,and i believe that we will go no further until we throw the theories away,and start looking for the real deal here.
Not all of current science is a dead end. Much of our contemporary science possesses good  quantitative accuracy even if you cannot admit that about its qualitative aspects.  Even if the science does not explain why two wires with current attract each other, it still tells you how much they attract.  That us useful and useful machines can be built based on that observation.  Also, if you come up with a good explanation of an effect, it must not conflict with these quantitative explanations - an "acid test" of sorts.

So I would suggest a more balanced approach - sorting out the chaff from the grain.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 12:05:31 PM
Nie wylewaj dziecka z kapiela.  Not all of current science is a dead end. Much of our contemporary science possesses good  quantitative accuracy even if you cannot admit that about its qualitative aspects.  Even if the science does not explain why two wires with current attract each other, it still tells you how much they attract.  That us useful and useful machines can be built based on that observation.  Also, if you come up with a good explanation of an effect, it must not conflict with these quantitative explanations - an "acid test" of sorts.

So I would suggest a more balanced approach - sorting out the chaff from the grain.
Sure,there is good science-although i believe there is much being hidden from us in the name of the all mighty dollar. I mean ,do you really expect me(or most others here) to believe that we have the technology to send and controll robots on mar's from here on earth,but we dont have a cure for the common cold ::). The same go's for cancer. Imagine if no one ever had to go down to the local drug store to get there yearly dose of cough medicine-->yep,billions of dollars world wide gone from the pockets of the big drug companies.

And why did the space shuttle program just stop?-They ran out of money ::)-rubbish,the American government would never give up a space program-never. This is a case of! we have better,but the public cannot have this information!. To go out on a limb(and i dont really care what others think about me when i say this),i have seen what i have seen,and i will tell you right now-there are no !NO! planes we have (that we the public know about) that can maneuver like the one i seen did.

There are those that already have answers to things we are trying so hard to find,and i believe it's because we are looking at the past insted of looking for the future. MH says to look in the book's-study them,but books from the past are not going to pave the way to the future. Funny thing about books are they were written by people that found answers through experiments-they had no books to read-->they are the book's.

The elite hide so much from us-lets take the moon for example. So even google can take snap shots from space,and show your backyard to the world as clear as day. The government can spot a bloke taking a pee from space-clear as day-->but we have no clear pictures of the moon's surface ???-what crap is this. Something to hide i think?.

Real scientific breakthroughs will come from those that arnt controlled.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 12:43:08 PM
Sure,there is good science-although i believe there is much being hidden from us in the name of the all mighty dollar. I mean ,do you really expect me(or most others here) to believe that we have the technology to send and controll robots on mar's from here on earth,but we dont have a cure for the common cold ::). The same go's for cancer. Imagine if no one ever had to go down to the local drug store to get there yearly dose of cough medicine-->yep,billions of dollars world wide gone from the pockets of the big drug companies.

And why did the space shuttle program just stop?-They ran out of money ::)-rubbish,the American government would never give up a space program-never. This is a case of! we have better,but the public cannot have this information!. To go out on a limb(and i dont really care what others think about me when i say this),i have seen what i have seen,and i will tell you right now-there are no !NO! planes we have (that we the public know about) that can maneuver like the one i seen did.

There are those that already have answers to things we are trying so hard to find,and i believe it's because we are looking at the past insted of looking for the future. MH says to look in the book's-study them,but books from the past are not going to pave the way to the future. Funny thing about books are they were written by people that found answers through experiments-they had no books to read-->they are the book's.

The elite hide so much from us-lets take the moon for example. So even google can take snap shots from space,and show your backyard to the world as clear as day. The government can spot a bloke taking a pee from space-clear as day-->but we have no clear pictures of the moon's surface ???-what crap is this. Something to hide i think?.

Real scientific breakthroughs will come from those that arnt controlled.
I find it a strange phenomenon that there are many people who claim that information is being withheld from them and yet they purposely ignore what has been learned the hard way by extremely gifted people over countless hours of careful toil.  No matter what the Ministry of Truth says:  Ignorance is not knowledge.  Books record ideas right or wrong. No one forces anyone to merely accept what is written in a book.  Physics texts describe many of the experiments conducted by the giants whose shoulders we stand upon.  One is free to consider those experiments and the results, postulate a different conclusion, and devise an experiment that resolves the new hypothesis.  But if one merely chooses to shun what experiments have been conducted, and how the conclusions have been reached then one condemns themselves to boot strap themselves out of the stone age or live it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 01:01:35 PM
I find it a strange phenomenon that there are many people who claim that information is being withheld from them and yet they purposely ignore what has been learned the hard way by extremely gifted people over countless hours of careful toil.  No matter what the Ministry of Truth says:  Ignorance is not knowledge.  Books record ideas right or wrong. No one forces anyone to merely accept what is written in a book.  Physics texts describe many of the experiments conducted by the giants whose shoulders we stand upon.  One is free to consider those experiments and the results, postulate a different conclusion, and devise an experiment that resolves the new hypothesis.  But if one merely chooses to shun what experiments have been conducted, and how the conclusions have been reached then one condemns themselves to boot strap themselves out of the stone age or live it.
The problem is the !so called! laws of physics. How can you make laws based on theories?.
Lets look at the law of the conservation of energy-->WTF dose that mean ???. If we adhear to this law,then we might aswell all pack up our bat and ball,and head off home-game lost.

And what if i can show this law dosnt apply to all. What if i can show a device that can switch from a gravity device,to a buoyancy device,and produce an energy output that is greater than the energy applied to the device.

First up-A gravity powered device-->breaks that law.Rubbish they say-cant work.
Second-A buoyancy device-breaks that law. Rubbish they say-cant work.
What about a mix of the two?-Nup-still rubbish.

But to all that read this,look at the picture below,and answer this very simple question.

Account for all the energies out,so as they equal the energy in.
Cant create--cant destroy--only transform.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 01:18:51 PM
And when you have had a go at answering the first question-dose this second diagram speak true?-give an accurate description as to all energies out.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 24, 2015, 01:34:01 PM
@Mark
Quote
There has been lots of motion but no forward movement that I have seen in
free energy.  Perhaps you could point to actual progress over any time frame
that you like.

I see a great deal of progress in this field and it's interesting to consider the big picture.
I think you believe free energy cannot be real because you have no proof which relates to personal observations. On the other hand you also have no proof Electrons or Protons exist because you have never observed them and yet you may believe in them without question. Which leaves us in an awkward position because many of the objections to the concept of free energy relate to modern physics which is generally based on the absence of disproof. That is we can believe something is true through observation which may be true or it may be false because the premise is false or we may also believe something is true but is unobservable and based on an absence of disproof. You see in physics the more fantastic the claim ie. virtual particles, the less likely someone will find an objection to the claim based on an observation.

For instance you may observe that a piece of iron is attracted to a magnet and believe this must be true even though fundamentally the premise is completely false. The magnet has a field which induces an opposite field in the iron, Magnetic Induction, the two fields couple which produces a force between them causing the fields to move towards one another. Thus iron is not attracted to a magnet, the magnet induces a field in the iron and the two fields interact causing a force between the fields which is observed as attraction however the observation of attraction is fundamentally false. The Iron is not attracted to anything it is a field related phenomena.

Now if I took a rubber band and stretched it should I then believe my left and right hand are attracted to one another?. Well no that is quite ridiculous and yet this is exactly what most would seem to believe in regards to magnets and iron. Einstein had some insight into the nature of this problem and presumed two forces pulling inward to a center are indistinguishable from two external forces pushing inward to a center. As such an observation may appear to be true on the surface but based on a premise which is false leading once again to the concept of proof not being real proof of anything in a universal sense but an absence of disproof.

I think the concept of free energy is a quagmire of semantics and false beliefs by most everyone involved on both sides of the debate. Both sides debate the issue while standing on a foundation of quicksand, all proclaiming they are on firm ground as they slowly sink into the reality they have created for themselves. In any case the one thing which seems obvious to me is that our history has proven we will always learn new things which will disprove our past beliefs. There is no static only dynamic and everything must change regardless of what we may believe.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 01:36:01 PM
Brad,

Power is not energy.

The missing information required is; how long was the 60W source ON to create the quantity of H and O2 that you depict?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 01:41:36 PM
Even if the science does not explain why two wires with current attract each other,

Science does explain it, but one may have to dig deeper than a Google search.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 01:43:49 PM
Brad,

Power is not energy.

The missing information required is; how long was the 60W source ON to create the quantity of H and O2 that you depict?
There is no missing information poynt.The question is-will the output energy of the HHO cell be equal to the P/in. So if we add up both the energy stored in the two gases,and the heat both disipated and stored in the cell,will this be equal to the P/in.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 01:53:53 PM
Brad,

Power is not energy.

In the case of a battery,we have a chemical reaction-this is chemical energy at work. This energy is transformed into electrical power,which in turn(via the HHO cell)is once agained turned into heat energy,and stored energy within the gas.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 01:59:52 PM
The problem is the !so called! laws of physics. How can you make laws based on theories?.
The question itself betrays a failure to understand how we acquire knowledge.  An idea becomes a law when all efforts to falsify the idea fail.
Quote
Lets look at the law of the conservation of energy-->WTF dose that mean ???.
It means just what it says:  This world we live in has a certain amount of "stuff" that we call matter in one form and energy in another.  There is no way to destroy that "stuff" and there is no way to create more "stuff" ex nihilo.
Quote
If we adhear to this law,then we might aswell all pack up our bat and ball,and head off home-game lost.
I suppose that depends on what one considers the "game" to be.
Quote

And what if i can show this law dosnt apply to all. What if i can show a device that can switch from a gravity device,to a buoyancy device,and produce an energy output that is greater than the energy applied to the device.
You are welcome to try.  Al who have tried in the past have failed.
Quote

First up-A gravity powered device-->breaks that law.Rubbish they say-cant work.
Second-A buoyancy device-breaks that law. Rubbish they say-cant work.
What about a mix of the two?-Nup-still rubbish.

But to all that read this,look at the picture below,and answer this very simple question.

Account for all the energies out,so as they equal the energy in.
Cant create--cant destroy--only transform.
Electrolysis is well understood and well accounted.  Where do you think there is a loss or gain in total energy?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 24, 2015, 01:59:58 PM
@tinman
Quote
The problem is the !so called! laws of physics. How can you make laws based on
theories?.
Lets look at the law of the conservation of energy-->WTF dose that mean (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)).
If we adhear to this law,then we might aswell all pack up our bat and ball,and
head off home-game lost.

It depends on ones perspective, the conservation of energy can coexist with the concept of free energy in my opinion. If the universe is full of energy on every known level and we know as a fact it is then the conservation of energy proves the concept free energy.

1)The universe is full of energy everywhere we know of because energy is conserved, it cannot just disappear.
2)If energy is conserved and everywhere then it is inherently free, Energy is Energy.
3)A device may have a value or cost but energy is inherently free and if we build a device which extracts this energy we know as a fact is everywhere then that does not change the fact it is still free energy.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 02:01:55 PM
And when you have had a go at answering the first question-dose this second diagram speak true?-give an accurate description as to all energies out.
Bad accounting leads out garbage conclusions.  Energy is stored in the broken bonds, as well as the state change, and temperature change.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 02:06:44 PM
There is no missing information poynt.The question is-will the output energy of the HHO cell be equal to the P/in. So if we add up both the energy stored in the two gases,and the heat both disipated and stored in the cell,will this be equal to the P/in.

Perhaps I have misunderstood?

This is my understanding; you turn on the disassociation apparatus and run it until you have 100psi in each container. This H and O2 if recombined represents a certain amount of energy. Correct thus far?

Now, you are comparing that stored energy to the power of your 60W source? Is that correct?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 02:15:36 PM
 
Quote
Electrolysis is well understood and well accounted.  Where do you think there is a loss or gain in total energy
I dont believe there is any gain or loss-this was a question i was asking others to confirm.

Quote
The question itself betrays a failure to understand how we acquire knowledge.
The failure comes with the inability to use systems that have no loss or gain to drive other systems that give extra gain's due to the motion of the first unity system.1 system closed,and 1 system open.

Quote
You are welcome to try.  Al who have tried in the past have failed.
If the past were only full of failure's,then we'd still be walking to work and swiming to the bahama's.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 02:18:11 PM
@Mark
I see a great deal of progress in this field and it's interesting to consider the big picture.
Kindly cite an example of the progress you claim.  I am looking for where it can be shown that we have obtained reliable evidence that any free energy technology can deliver as claimed.
Quote

I think you believe free energy cannot be real because you have no proof which relates to personal observations.
No, I base the likelihood of free energy being real at next to nil because no one has ever offered reliable evidence of it and we have great experience that matter / energy are conserved.
Quote
On the other hand you also have no proof Electrons or Protons exist because you have never observed them and yet you may believe in them without question. Which leaves us in an awkward position because many of the objections to the concept of free energy relate to modern physics which is generally based on the absence of disproof. That is we can believe something is true through observation which may be true or it may be false because the premise is false or we may also believe something is true but is unobservable and based on an absence of disproof. You see in physics the more fantastic the claim ie. virtual particles, the less likely someone will find an objection to the claim based on an observation.
That is about a five-way conjunctive argument.  Nope, it is very simple:  Come up with reliable evidence of free energy and it will be something to consider and investigate. So what reliable evidence do you have?
Quote

For instance you may observe that a piece of iron is attracted to a magnet and believe this must be true even though fundamentally the premise is completely false.
What "this" are you referring to?  What "premise" are you referring to?
Quote
The magnet has a field which induces an opposite field in the iron, Magnetic Induction, the two fields couple which produces a force between them causing the fields to move towards one another. Thus iron is not attracted to a magnet, the magnet induces a field in the iron and the two fields interact causing a force between the fields which is observed as attraction however the observation of attraction is fundamentally false. The Iron is not attracted to anything it is a field related phenomena.
Are you offering your personal beliefs or are you trying to describe what you think conventional theory postulates?
Quote

Now if I took a rubber band and stretched it should I then believe my left and right hand are attracted to one another?.
Did they pass notes to each other in class?  Do they blush in each other's presence?
Quote
Well no that is quite ridiculous and yet this is exactly what most would seem to believe in regards to magnets and iron. Einstein had some insight into the nature of this problem and presumed two forces pulling inward to a center are indistinguishable from two external forces pushing inward to a center. As such an observation may appear to be true on the surface but based on a premise which is false leading once again to the concept of proof not being real proof of anything in a universal sense but an absence of disproof.
You appear to conflate observation:  what is actually sensed, with interpretations of observations.
Quote

I think the concept of free energy is a quagmire of semantics and false beliefs by most everyone involved on both sides of the debate. Both sides debate the issue while standing on a foundation of quicksand, all proclaiming they are on firm ground as they slowly sink into the reality they have created for themselves. In any case the one thing which seems obvious to me is that our history has proven we will always learn new things which will disprove our past beliefs. There is no static only dynamic and everything must change regardless of what we may believe.

AC
I saw an instructive observation once, where the person speaking noted that while there are many, many things that are possible and as yet undiscovered, there are many more that necessarily are not possible.  Rational people follow the evidence.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
Here are some hints as to what magnetism (and the forces) is:

http://skepticsplay.blogspot.ca/2007/12/relativity-electrostatics-magnetism.html
http://skepticsplay.blogspot.ca/2011/03/electricity-magnetism-space-and-time.html
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 02:22:54 PM
Perhaps I have misunderstood?

This is my understanding; you turn on the disassociation apparatus and run it until you have 100psi in each container. This H and O2 if recombined represents a certain amount of energy. Correct thus far?

Now, you are comparing that stored energy to the power of your 60W source? Is that correct?
We are supplying the cell with 60 watts of power until such time that the tanks have reached the said pressure. If we now add the stored energy within the H and O + the heat energy from the cell(and the battery as well if we want to get down to the nitty gritty)-will this total amount of energy equal the P/in supplied?.-->or is there another energy being disipated that we are not taking into account?.

Were looking for the total transformation.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 02:28:52 PM
I dont believe there is any gain or loss-this was a question i was asking others to confirm.
And so you have received your confirmations.
Quote

The failure comes with the inability to use systems that have no loss or gain to drive other systems that give extra gain's due to the motion of the first unity system.1 system closed,and 1 system open.
You have created an accounting problem.  As long as you do not place a boundary around a system, the amount of energy and/ormatter that can enter or leave has no intrinsic limit.  There is no meaningul way to evaluate such a thing that has been set-up as completely indefinite.
Quote

If the past were only full of failure's,then we'd still be walking to work and swiming to the bahama's.
If lollipops only came in grape children who prefer cherry would be disappointed.  None of the technology we have developed depends on free energy being real.  Go ahead and try to disprove conservation in energy, or gravitation (buoyancy is a subset).  No one has ever succeeded before you.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 24, 2015, 02:31:31 PM
@Mark
Quote
No, I base the likelihood of free energy being real at next to nil because
no one has ever offered reliable evidence of it and we have
great experience that matter / energy are conserved.
Let's be perfectly clear, first you cannot know everyone/no one so that is a lie, thus you cannot know that "no one has ever offered reliable evidence of it" which is also a lie and the conservation of energy does not negate free energy which is a false belief.
I mean your arguments are simply ridiculous because logically I can tear them apart without even trying. Come on Mark you can do better than that because your last post was pre-school in my opinion.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 02:31:53 PM
We are supplying the cell with 60 watts of power until such time that the tanks have reached the said pressure. If we now add the stored energy within the H and O + the heat energy from the cell(and the battery as well if we want to get down to the nitty gritty)-will this total amount of energy equal the P/in supplied?.-->or is there another energy being disipated that we are not taking into account?.

Were looking for the total transformation.

Again Brad, power is not energy. One can not ask; "does energy x equal power y". That is comparing apples and oranges.

If I understand you correctly, the wording to your question should be as follows:

If we run the 60W cell until each tank is at 100psi, does the stored energy in the gasses, plus the total heat energy lost in the process, equal the energy used by the 60W source?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 02:34:13 PM
Here are some hints as to what magnetism (and the forces) is:

http://skepticsplay.blogspot.ca/2007/12/relativity-electrostatics-magnetism.html
http://skepticsplay.blogspot.ca/2011/03/electricity-magnetism-space-and-time.html
Quote
Quote: The magnetic and electric forces interact and affect each other, but it is not clear why. Why should currents in the same direction attract? The wires, after all, have no net charge. There are just as many electrons as protons in each wire. So it can't be that the electric force is somehow sneaking in, disguised, right?

There is, in fact, a paradox associated with magnetism. Magnetic forces only act upon moving charges.
Cool-so what about PM's-->where is there electrical charge?
Could it be those negatively and positively charges i was talking about some time back?,that have a close association to that of static charges-
Quote: The electrostatic force is what causes opposite charges to attract, and like charges to repel. Electrons, negatively charged, tend to stick to protons, positively charged. Two protons would repel each other, as would two electrons.

They forgot to add that positively and negatively charges are also attracted to neutral charges.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 02:40:53 PM
Again Brad, power is not energy. One can not ask; "does energy x equal power y". That is comparing apples and oranges.

If I understand you correctly, the wording to your question should be as follows:

If we run the 60W cell until each tank is at 100psi, does the stored energy from the gasses, plus the total heat energy lost in the process, equal the the energy used by the 60W source?
Yes
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 02:47:10 PM
Then the energy will be equal to or less than the energy used by the 60W source, depending on whether any material byproducts (aside from the H and O2) were produced in the process.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 24, 2015, 02:47:41 PM
Science does explain it, but one may have to dig deeper than a Google search.
Do you mean virtual photons?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 02:49:57 PM
Do you mean virtual photons?
No. I mean something along the lines of the two links provided above.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 24, 2015, 03:10:17 PM
@tinman
You seem to be confusing even the most basic terms and concepts and I would recommend going to the website below and reading all the explanations.
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html (http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html)
It is by far the best site I have ever seen concerning common sense explanations that anyone can understand.
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 24, 2015, 03:33:27 PM
No. I mean something along the lines of the two links provided above.
Oh, shifting the responsibility to the electric force.
That's like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So you know what I have to ask you now ;(
What causes the electric force, then ?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Qwert on January 24, 2015, 03:41:03 PM
Recently I found this interesting patent and I guess it fits to the concept of this thread: Resonant electromagnetic field amplifier utilizing a magnetic LRC resonant circuit (by Diaz):

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5675306.pdf (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5675306.pdf)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 24, 2015, 03:42:22 PM
@tinman
You seem to be confusing even the most basic terms and concepts and I would recommend going to the website below and reading all the explanations.
http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html (http://amasci.com/miscon/whatis.html)
It is by far the best site I have ever seen concerning common sense explanations that anyone can understand.
AC
OK-this is bullshit.
What creates the power coming from a battery-thats right,chemical energy.
So when i say is the energy equal stored within the gas and disipated as heat to that of the energy going into the cell-then thats exactly what i mean.--->>>energy in to energy out.
The primary energy is chemical. The secondary state is electrical power in.

Why dose it always have to be so hard-it's like working for the linch mob here.

You know what-im done

Enjoy

Oh to be so bloody perfect AC.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 24, 2015, 03:50:51 PM
...look at the picture below,and answer this very simple question.
Account for all the energies out,...
So you put some electric energy in and get the following out:
1) Chemical bond energy
2) Buoyancy of the gas bubbles due to phase change.
3) Heat energy (or cooling) depending whether the electrolysis is performed in the exothermic or endothermic region (see diagram below).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 04:06:37 PM
Cool-so what about PM's-->where is there electrical charge?
You mean where is the moving charge?  And the conventional answer is it is the electron spin.  It is NOT the electron charge.
Quote
Could it be those negatively and positively charges i was talking about some time back?,that have a close association to that of static charges-
Absolutely not, see above.
Quote
Quote: The electrostatic force is what causes opposite charges to attract, and like charges to repel. Electrons, negatively charged, tend to stick to protons, positively charged. Two protons would repel each other, as would two electrons.

They forgot to add that positively and negatively charges are also attracted to neutral charges.
No they do not.  Neutrons do not electrostatically attract protons or electrons.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 04:35:06 PM
@MarkLet's be perfectly clear, first you cannot know everyone/no one so that is a lie, thus you cannot know that "no one has ever offered reliable evidence of it" which is also a lie and the conservation of energy does not negate free energy which is a false belief.
So you have reliable evidence of free energy do you?  Or you can locate reliable evidence of free energy can you?
Quote
I mean your arguments are simply ridiculous because logically I can tear them apart without even trying. Come on Mark you can do better than that because your last post was pre-school in my opinion.
AC
Evidence, where is your evidence?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 24, 2015, 07:33:39 PM
Mark E
hello ,I hope your having a nice day today
  I ask you a question and this is just based on the
contributions here in this thread,  which in my opinion [and others] are _either_ examples of
suppression ,or milking the cash Cow alah "hopegirl" but in this case with OUR tax dollars which unlike Hopegirls voluntary donations we pay for this cash cow or else face prison sentence.

  Here AC shared a very promising simple solar tech which pffers stupefying potential
in the year 2002....
13 years and this simple game changing  tech is where??


http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html

why don't you find out for us Mark E ,I'm tired of carrying water for you only to have you kick the pail over and laugh.

call them and ask why our tax dollars are going to these "hopegirl" public projects ??
that we were told would be very simple and to expect shortly...
or maybe MH can call and report back ??

IS THERE  A CRIME BEING PERPETRATED  , FRAUD,  SCAM  ??

suppression ??
 other issues??
13 years ...come on,    you boys are our champions  :)

do us some real good .....
respectfully
Chet
PS
and you often ask me why my sentences are chopped up or all over the place
seems your computer does not suffer the same afflictions as mine on these pages.

must be nice...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 24, 2015, 07:47:33 PM
Mark
and please..hold yourself to the same standards as you hold _ME_

no google smarts or cut and paste or mr wizard stuff

pick up the phone and make the call and report back...don't have one of  your "colleagues"
do it.
well I suppose  MH can do it ,I believe he said he makes calls on fraudsters and scammers posting in this forum all the time  [[GDS?]??

respectfully
Chet
Ps
it would be a wonderful service to the community, its what you do everyday already
don't let this get legs [suppression] _OR_ conversely you can  save us from the scammers.....
OR ???

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 07:50:12 PM
OK-this is bullshit.
What creates the power coming from a battery-thats right,chemical energy.
So when i say is the energy equal stored within the gas and disipated as heat to that of the energy going into the cell-then thats exactly what i mean.--->>>energy in to energy out.
The primary energy is chemical. The secondary state is electrical power in.

Why dose it always have to be so hard-it's like working for the linch mob here.

You know what-im done

Enjoy

Oh to be so bloody perfect AC.

Try to see the positive side of this Brad. We're simply trying to ascertain more precisely what you mean. So when you appear to be mixing the terms energy and power, I for one need to ask for clarification, because they are not equals. The wording on your first post made it impossible to answer the question, because two related but distinctly different concepts were being interchanged.

Energy is energy, and power is power. Energy is basically power times time. Therefore one must try to be consistent with their terms when discussing total energy or power. Choose either term, but not both (in most cases).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 24, 2015, 08:06:15 PM
Oh, shifting the responsibility to the electric force.
That's like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So you know what I have to ask you now ;(
What causes the electric force, then ?

First, is the force between two wires caused by the electric force between charges, or the force between moving charge and that which is creating a magnetic field?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 08:32:09 PM
Mark E
hello ,I hope your having a nice day today
  I ask you a question and this is just based on the
contributions here in this thread,  which in my opinion [and others] are _either_ examples of
suppression ,or milking the cash Cow alah "hopegirl" but in this case with OUR tax dollars which unlike Hopegirls voluntary donations we pay for this cash cow or else face prison sentence.

  Here AC shared a very promising simple solar tech which pffers stupefying potential
in the year 2002....
13 years and this simple game changing  tech is where??


http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html
Lots of things show initial promise and run into challenges.    If you want more details go dig up Walukiewicz's work over the past decade.  He is still running that solar energy materials group at Berkeley.  It is not as though he got shipped off to some foreign prison for top scientists.  That group at Berkeley like the LED group as UCSB are both well-funded and making big contributions to solar module efficiency at Berkeley and LED efficiency at UCSB.
Quote

why don't you find out for us Mark E ,I'm tired of carrying water for you only to have you kick the pail over and laugh.
I laugh at ridiculous ideas like conspiracy theories that lack any credible evidence.
Quote

call them and ask why our tax dollars are going to these "hopegirl" public projects ??
How you compare legitimate work being performed at premiere institutions by top scientists with the con artist Robitaille clan is beyond me.
Quote
that we were told would be very simple and to expect shortly...
They did not say such things.  They said they made significant discoveries about those particular III-V materials that offered promise.  And they do.  The Robitailles simply lied and claimed an over unity that never existed.
Quote
or maybe MH can call and report back ??

IS THERE  A CRIME BEING PERPETRATED  , FRAUD,  SCAM  ??

suppression ??
 other issues??
13 years ...come on,    you boys are our champions  :)

do us some real good .....
respectfully
Chet
PS
and you often ask me why my sentences are chopped up or all over the place
seems your computer does not suffer the same afflictions as mine on these pages.

must be nice...
Your verbage continues to be a train wreck.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 08:35:37 PM
Mark
and please..hold yourself to the same standards as you hold _ME_

no google smarts or cut and paste or mr wizard stuff

pick up the phone and make the call and report back...don't have one of  your "colleagues"
do it.
well I suppose  MH can do it ,I believe he said he makes calls on fraudsters and scammers posting in this forum all the time  [[GDS?]??

respectfully
Chet
Ps
it would be a wonderful service to the community, its what you do everyday already
don't let this get legs [suppression] _OR_ conversely you can  save us from the scammers.....
OR ???
Are you drunk or high on something?  GDS is a fraud.  Within the coming seven weeks, you can take it to the bank that Greg Potter will again move the goal posts.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: picowatt on January 24, 2015, 08:35:47 PM
Mark E
hello ,I hope your having a nice day today
  I ask you a question and this is just based on the
contributions here in this thread,  which in my opinion [and others] are _either_ examples of
suppression ,or milking the cash Cow alah "hopegirl" but in this case with OUR tax dollars which unlike Hopegirls voluntary donations we pay for this cash cow or else face prison sentence.

  Here AC shared a very promising simple solar tech which pffers stupefying potential
in the year 2002....
13 years and this simple game changing  tech is where??


http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html

why don't you find out for us Mark E ,I'm tired of carrying water for you only to have you kick the pail over and laugh.

call them and ask why our tax dollars are going to these "hopegirl" public projects ??
that we were told would be very simple and to expect shortly...
or maybe MH can call and report back ??

IS THERE  A CRIME BEING PERPETRATED  , FRAUD,  SCAM  ??

suppression ??
 other issues??
13 years ...come on,    you boys are our champions  :)

do us some real good .....
respectfully
Chet
PS
and you often ask me why my sentences are chopped up or all over the place
seems your computer does not suffer the same afflictions as mine on these pages.

must be nice...

Rather than having to be some great conspiracy, how about the reason just being related to materials sciences and commercialization hurdles?  Having something perform in a lab setting as compared to being able to sit on a roof for 20 years is sometimes a huge difference.  As well, if something is three times as efficient but costs ten times as much, it is not going to gain much of a foot hold other than for space or military applications.

However, scientists are indeed working on making these panels commercially viable (lower cost, longer life).

 http://www.academia.edu/2635794/Progress_in_Indium_Gallium_Nitride_Materials_for_Solar_Photovoltaic_Energy_Conversion

Additional searches will yield many more results.

Yes, if we applied a "Manhattan Project style, full steam ahead regardless of cost or manpower" approach to some of these issues, we could surely speed them up.

However, if these new cells looked all that easy to produce in commercial quantities with greater efficiencies and reasonable lifetimes/costs with only minimal development required, surely a country like Germany would have invested heavily in or waited for these panels, as they have been putting up a lot of solar.  Hopefully, by the time their existing panels reach end of life efficiencies, they will be able to replace their existing panels with higher efficiency panels allowing them to increase production further.

Similarly, iron nitride is a very promising replacement (next gen) for NdFeB magnets.  At this time however, it is bogged down in materials science as they attempt to grow the stuff in bulk while maintaining mostly FE16N2 throughout.

Sometimes it just takes time (and money...)

PW

 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 24, 2015, 09:35:46 PM
@tinman
Quote
OK-this is bullshit.[/size]What creates the power coming from a battery-thats right,chemical energy.So when i say is the energy equal stored within the gas and disipated as heat to that of the energy going into the cell-then thats exactly what i mean.--->>>energy in to energy out.The primary energy is chemical. The secondary state is electrical power in.Why dose it always have to be so hard-it's like working for the linch mob here.You know what-im done


I guess I should have been more specific...my bad. I read some of your posts concerning energy and power and charges etc... and the context and definitions seemed muddled. I then posted the website because that was where I found some real insight that made perfect sense to me a very long time ago. The website explains the nuts and bolts of what we are talking about here and if we want to move forward we need a solid foundation to build on.


I wasn't commenting on your electrolysis experiment, I have no interest in it, been there done that moved on. As well I'm not quite sure how electrolysis relates to magnet myths and misconceptions?.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 24, 2015, 09:59:41 PM
Mark E
so that's a No, you will not personally investigate this...,much quicker and saves bandwidth


and what does Drinking have to do with MH making phone calls about GDS and scams ?


[ "DRUNK ?" an example of how you twist  words , and routinely make libelous and nonsensical  statements.]

thx
Chet
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: wattsup on January 24, 2015, 10:45:23 PM
Surely off topic but about Solar Panels I would like to know.......

If you had two identical but small solar panels with same battery and volt meter each, both out in the same sunlight, but in front of one of them you place a rheostat and fan so that the blades can slowly pass over one of the solar panels at let's say 1 pass per second, which solar panel will produce the highest battery charge?

So, does the RMS value of sunlight produce more then a frequent peak to peak of sunlight. If peak to peak wins, this would explain the lush Amazonian ground growth despite the heavy tree canopy.

wattsup

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 24, 2015, 11:59:56 PM
Mark E
so that's a No, you will not personally investigate this...,much quicker and saves bandwidth
Why should anyone bother to investigate your absurd conspiracy theory Chet?
Quote


and what does Drinking have to do with MH making phone calls about GDS and scams ?
LOL, I asked if your bizarre nonsensical post, in particular your conspiracy theory and continued faith in the fraud Greg Potter are the result of you drinking or being high.  Your disjoint and illogical response does little to dispel the possibility of either.
Quote


[ "DRUNK ?" an example of how you twist  words , and routinely make libelous and nonsensical  statements.]
The only twisted here is the mangled logic, if one can even call what you are using is logic of any kind.
Quote

thx
Chet

Quote
Quote
Quote from: ramset on Today at 07:47:33 PM

    Mark
    and please..hold yourself to the same standards as you hold _ME_

    no google smarts or cut and paste or mr wizard stuff

    pick up the phone and make the call and report back...don't have one of  your "colleagues"
    do it.
    well I suppose  MH can do it ,I believe he said he makes calls on fraudsters and scammers posting in this forum all the time  [[GDS?]??

    respectfully
    Chet
    Ps
    it would be a wonderful service to the community, its what you do everyday already
    don't let this get legs [suppression] _OR_ conversely you can  save us from the scammers.....
    OR ???

Are you drunk or high on something?  GDS is a fraud.  Within the coming seven weeks, you can take it to the bank that Greg Potter will again move the goal posts.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 12:13:53 AM
Surely off topic but about Solar Panels I would like to know.......

If you had two identical but small solar panels with same battery and volt meter each, both out in the same sunlight, but in front of one of them you place a rheostat and fan so that the blades can slowly pass over one of the solar panels at let's say 1 pass per second, which solar panel will produce the highest battery charge?

So, does the RMS value of sunlight produce more then a frequent peak to peak of sunlight. If peak to peak wins, this would explain the lush Amazonian ground growth despite the heavy tree canopy.

wattsup
For a series string of solar cells covering even one cell kills the output from the entire string.  That is not recoverable.  Solar modules are typically divided into three parts each with a bypass diode so that shading from bird poop or debris does not shut down the entire module. 

There is a different effect caused by the passing of clouds where the edge of a cloud forms a lens that briefly concentrates sunlight as the cloud edge passes.  If you want good output from a solar array, keep the entire array out of the shade, and keep the modules clean of bird poop and other debris.  You can kill the output of a solar module by running a strip of wide black tape across the short axis of the module so that the tape covers most of one cell in each column.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 01:17:47 AM
No they do not.  Neutrons do not electrostatically attract protons or electrons.
Neutrons have no charge-they are not a neutrally charged mass.Neutrons and protons are attracted together by the strong force-nothing to do with electrostaic attraction.

A neutrally charged object is where the number of electrons is equal to the number of protons in that mass,and either a positively or negatively charged mass WILL be attracted to this neutrally charged mass as much as the neutrally charged mass will be attracted to that charged mass.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 01:30:39 AM
Mark E

[ "DRUNK ?" an example of how you twist  words , and routinely make libelous and nonsensical  statements.]

thx
Chet
Yes,Mark dose the word twisting quite often here,and it really needs to stop.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 01:31:55 AM
Neutrons have no charge-they are not a neutrally charged mass.
Where are you obtaining your definitions?
Quote
Neutrons and protons are attracted together by the strong force-nothing to do with electrostaic attraction.
That's right and that's what I said:  they are not electrostatically attracted to each other.
Quote

A neutrally charged object is where the number of electrons is equal to the number of protons in that mass,and either a positively or negatively charged mass WILL be attracted to this neutrally charged mass as much as the neutrally charged mass will be attracted to that charged mass.
Where charge can move freely within a material such as dipoles turning etc, then the electric field of an external charge will be able to impart an opposing charge moment.  However in a material where the charge cannot move the neutral material does not alter the field.  If you take dry gasses, until you reach an ionization potential, you will not get a wind.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 01:33:02 AM
Yes,Mark dose the word twisting quite often here,and it really needs to stop.
Example?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 25, 2015, 01:35:01 AM
Example?

See forum archives.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 25, 2015, 01:44:31 AM
Tinnan:

Quote
If i know so little,and you know so much with your 4500 hours benchwork and book's,then how is it i had to correct you about the single coil v the two coils-1 either side of the magnet?.

So what if I made a mistake about the single coil vs. two coils.  I think that goes back to the debate with Scorch.  I was messed up and I admitted it.  There is no logic at all in what you are saying.  I think most of the time I say stuff that makes sense.  Do you realize how many mistakes you made in the recent discussion and what a slog it has been to try to get through to you?  After years you are still mixing up power and energy and when you state something is still has to be deciphered to understand what you are really trying to say.  Those things highlight the inherent problems and limitations when you do experiments and primarily rely on yourself to interpret them and put up walls when people try to give you their viewpoints.

Quote
So here in lies the problem-im simply not interested in learning theories that i dont believe are correct. If i did that,then i would be heading down the same dead end you guy's are-no advancement-and still no idea as to what the hell a magnetic field actually is after that wonderfull 200 years. Same go's with gravity-the best they have is-->gravity sucks,a mass attracts another mass-->well thats helpfull.

That's another statement that I reject and you hear it all the time.  "You don't even know what an electric/magnetic field really is.  Nyah-nyah."  The problem is that the people that ask that question in an accusatory fashion themselves don't have the answer.  The worst offender was Kenny who rattled that question off like a machine gun.  When the question was put back to him, he said that he knew and just look up Aristotle for the "real answer."  Besides that, Kenny does not understand magnetic fields at all even though he is "teaching."

Beyond that, nobody around here is looking for the "deep understanding" in their experiments anyway.  Not a single person is doing an experiment to probe the true explanation of what a magnetic field "really is" so it's a moot point.

Quote
I have a thread going else where about a gravity/buoyant device that puts out more energy than it consumes-(by the book),and do you think any interest has been shown in that?-->there is one other person giving an input-thats it.

Honestly I don't believe that for a second.  My gut feel is telling me another round of slogging through your experiment over 100 postings and together the group would come to the understanding of where you went wrong.

Quote
So once again-im not here to learn the same old shit that the books of 200 year ago have to offer--they just simply dont have the answers we seek.

You are only in a position to explore the fringes after you have mastered the basics.  I think it's fair to say that you might think that you are doing new stuff when in reality it's still part of an ongoing learning process to master the basics.  It's also clear that in many cases you are going to resist the basics because you have you own ideas that are probably mostly misunderstandings.

You of course are free to do your own thing.  Sometimes people aren't going to be willing to put in the effort for a big debate all the time.  So don't be surprised if sometimes you are corrected with a one-line explanation and then just leave it at that.  If you don't want to listen then live and let live.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 01:52:19 AM
@tinman

. As well I'm not quite sure how electrolysis relates to magnet myths and misconceptions?.


AC
Well that law(the conservation of energy)turned up here,and i was just trying to show how this law dosnt fit the bill when talking about a combined system consisting of 1 closed system,and one open system. When you combine buoyant and gravitational forces(an open system) with the (tried to explain)electrolisis system,then a higher amount of energy can be obtained from the system as a whole to that of what you put in. If a 100% transformation of the input takes place within the cell,then this proves that the system can output more energy than it consumed, and this extra energy comes from switching from a buoyant factor to a gravitational factor. This switching is done when we convert the electrical power into heat energy and energy storage within the gas.

Maybe i term it like this.
A=B+B1+B2
Where A is the power input
B is the energy stored within the two gases
B1 is the heat output of the cell
And B2 is the heat output by the battery and circuitry
We also assume there are no consumables within the system.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 02:11:31 AM
Well that law(the conservation of energy)turned up here,and i was just trying to show how this law dosnt fit the bill when talking about a combined system consisting of 1 closed system,and one open system. When you combine buoyant and gravitational forces(an open system) with the (tried to explain)electrolisis system,then a higher amount of energy can be obtained from the system as a whole to that of what you put in. If a 100% transformation of the input takes place within the cell,then this proves that the system can output more energy than it consumed, and this extra energy comes from switching from a buoyant factor to a gravitational factor. This switching is done when we convert the electrical power into heat energy and energy storage within the gas.
But at room temperature the state change from liquid to gas traps about 16% of the energy of any otherwise ideal water electrolysis system.  That 16% energy is not available as chemical bond energy when one goes to collect energy back by oxidizing the H2 / reducing the O2.
Quote

Maybe i term it like this.
A=B+B1+B2
Where A is the power input
B is the energy stored within the two gases
B1 is the heat output of the cell
And B2 is the heat output by the battery and circuitry
We also assume there are no consumables within the system.
Look, you've got to work in consistent things:  Power or energy.  You can't just go back and forth without performing a time integral on power to get to energy, or differentiating the energy with respect to time to get power.

For example, you could say: 

A is the input energy during the experiment.  (You may find the energy by measuring voltage and current, deriving power and then integrating that found power over the time of the experiment.)
B is the chemical bond energy available from the two gasses.
B1 is the heat generated by the cell during the experiment.
B2 is the heat energy generated by the battery and the circuitry during the experiment.

When you go to account for heat you will want to be careful to account for all the heat generated, whcih may require continuing measurements long after the input power is turned off.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 02:26:59 AM
Tinnan:

MileHigh
Quote
Do you realize how many mistakes you made in the recent discussion and what a slog it has been to try to get through to you
Once again-im looking for the new,and you wish to teach the old. Do the brains here not have enough thought of there own to understand what one is trying to say without having to be an EE tech here?.

"
Quote
You don't even know what an electric/magnetic field really is.  Nyah-nyah."
 
And you do MH?-have you seen these spining electrons in the magnetic field?-my guess is no,you just accept what you are told. And whats with the Nyah-Nyah?,im sure this is something children say to others when they feel they have the upper hand,and i see no evidence of that here.

Quote
Besides that, Kenny does not understand magnetic fields at all even through he is "teaching."
The truth is MH,even the books dont know what a magnetic field is or why it dose what it dose. When one ask the all knowing's here!what causes the physical force of a magnetic field! there is never a straight answer.This happens all the time when science and physics dosnt have the answers-the questions are just circumvented and end up drifting into utter rubbish about electron spin's and the likes-->there is no clear explanation,just more side steps.

Quote
Not a single person is doing an experiment to probe the true explanation of what a magnetic field "really is" so it's a moot point.
And as i stated above-those that are still dont have the answer,so one could safely assume that there looking at an incorrect example.

Quote
My gut feel is telling me another round of slogging through your experiment over 100 postings and together the group would come to the understanding of where you went wrong.
Once again,this comes down to the EE guys being able to interpret what a non EE is trying to tell them. There is also the case where our(the experimentors)words get taken and twisted into things that were not said.Then we have another page of trying to set things straight,and steer the topic back to where it should be before the guru's misdirected the thread.

Quote
You are only in a position to explore the fringes after you have mastered the basics.  I think it's fair to say that you might think that you are doing new stuff when in reality it's still part of an ongoing learning process to master the basics.  It's also clear that in many cases you are going to resist the basics because you have you own ideas that are probably mostly misunderstandings.
How dose one master the basics (like a magnetic fields properties)when the guru's dont even know what they are. My basic understanding will not be based on or around theories or the !not understood!.

Quote
You of course are free to do your own thing.  Sometimes people aren't going to be willing to put in the effort for a big debate all the time.  So don't be surprised if sometimes you are corrected with a one-line explanation and then just leave it at that.  If you don't want to listen then live and let live.

Here are some facts that i found hard to believe myself at first.
there are those here that feel the need to be the king-the all knowing.
There are those here that go out of there way to derail others presentations and thoughts.
There are those here that are truely stuck in the past,and have no room for the future.
There are those here that are !keyboard!jockies only,and are full of advice that has nothing to do with what you are trying to present.
And the big one-There are those that present fundamental workings of things that are based around theory ,and yet to be proven fact's.

If your looking for peanut butter,you probably wont find it in the jam jar.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: shylo on January 25, 2015, 02:46:09 AM
This thread is getting way off track.
When you pass a magnet across a coil of wire with open ends not connected to anything, what happens to the electrons ,where do they go?
If you short the coil connect the 2 ends together what happens to the electrons?
If you connect the ends of the coil to a diode, then to a cap ,...the cap charges ...right?
So what happens when you feed the cap , from the passing magnet as it enters then feed or discharge cap back to coil as magnet leaves?
Will the induced current flow be enough to propel the magnet away?
No there is a lose and the opposite field generated by the initial induction.
The lose and the opposite field need to be stored in a seperate component.
It's all in the switching
Imho artv
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 02:50:10 AM
But at room temperature the state change from liquid to gas traps about 16% of the energy of any otherwise ideal water electrolysis system.  That 16% energy is not available as chemical bond energy when one goes to collect energy back by oxidizing the H2 / reducing the O2.Look, you've got to work in consistent things:  Power or energy.  You can't just go back and forth without performing a time integral on power to get to energy, or differentiating the energy with respect to time to get power.

For example, you could say: 

A is the input energy during the experiment.  (You may find the energy by measuring voltage and current, deriving power and then integrating that found power over the time of the experiment.)
B is the chemical bond energy available from the two gasses.
B1 is the heat generated by the cell during the experiment.
B2 is the heat energy generated by the battery and the circuitry during the experiment.

When you go to account for heat you will want to be careful to account for all the heat generated, whcih may require continuing measurements long after the input power is turned off.
And this is a clasic example.
The question being asked is-was all the energy transformed from one form to another?
Do we get out what we put in.
We already know the answer is yes,regardless of time and power to energy conversions,and the need for endless debate on what's what,and how things should be presented.
The facts are-we have an input,and an output and a storage.
All the outputs and storage have to equal the input,regardless of what the inputs and outputs are-->unless you have discovered a way to destroy energy-->this is your own beloved physics.
What go's in ,must come out or be stored.

Power can be converted into energy.Power is a measure of how much we CAN produce. It is not a measure of how much energy there actually is, but a way of describing how much could be produced.
So all that had to be done was take the power avaliable that i gave you,and use that to determond if we produced the same amount of energy from that power as we produced in the form of heat,and stored in the form of the gas. But what happened insted was a full refit of the space shuttles computing system--> and MH wonders why there is a 100 pages of !go no where! babble.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: verpies on January 25, 2015, 03:10:44 AM
Power can be converted into energy.Power is a measure of how much we CAN produce.
No, power is a measure how quickly energy is transferred.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 03:14:37 AM

No there is a lose and the opposite field generated by the initial induction.
The lose and the opposite field need to be stored in a seperate component.
It's all in the switching
Imho artv
Quote
When you pass a magnet across a coil of wire with open ends not connected to anything, what happens to the electrons ,where do they go?
One would think that they go no where,as they have no path to follow.

Quote
This thread is getting way off track.
Yes,and i take the rap for that with my electrolisis cell debarkle.

Quote
If you short the coil connect the 2 ends together what happens to the electrons?
Now you have created a current loop,and the moving electrons create heat? :D

Quote
So what happens when you feed the cap , from the passing magnet as it enters then feed or discharge cap back to coil as magnet leaves?
The flow of current is in the opposite direction,so discharging the cap back into the coil would push the magnet away,but there wouldnt be enough energy in the cap to give a total opposite reaction,as some of the energy would be transformed into heat.

Quote
If you connect the ends of the coil to a diode, then to a cap ,...the cap charges ...right?
Will the induced current flow be enough to propel the magnet away?
I could be like the EE guy's here.
The cap wont charge just being conected to a coil unless that coil is recieving a changing magnetic field. Assuming you are passing the magnet across the coil,is this coil an air core coil,or dose it have a steel core?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: shylo on January 25, 2015, 03:26:45 AM
The cap does charge , the magnetic field does not have to change polarity it just has to change in its' strength. That alone is a differential in itself.
Shorting a coil just for an instant causes a spike which can be collected.
The short can occur many times during induction.
Steel deadens the effect.
artv
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2015, 03:30:42 AM
No, power us a measure how quickly energy is transferred.
Brad, verpies is correct.

Power is Joules per second, or J/s.

Now when you multiply power by time (i.e. seconds) to obtain the energy E, the seconds cancel and you are left with Joules (J).
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 03:43:45 AM
Brad, verpies is correct.

Power is Joules per second, or J/s.

Now when you multiply power by time (i.e. seconds) to obtain the energy E, the seconds cancel and you are left with Joules (J).
MH says read books-look on the net
Quote: http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/power-and-energy/
Power, on the other hand, is a measure of how much we CAN produce. It is not a measure of how much energy there actually is, but a way of describing how much could be produced.

Quote: What is a kilowatt hour? As a unit of measurment, it is actually the same thing as a joule, it is just a way of measuring energy.
It is very hard to use terms and measurements you guys like,when what we are being told is different depending on who is telling us.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 03:51:42 AM
. That alone is a differential in itself.
The short can occur many times during induction.
Steel deadens the effect.
artv
Quote
The cap does charge , the magnetic field does not have to change polarity it just has to change in its' strength
And that is why i said a changing magnetic field,and not fields.

Quote
Shorting a coil just for an instant causes a spike which can be collected.
If your collecting the inductive kickback,then you are not shorting the coil.The spike is created when the coil's current input is interupted-disconected. The inductive kickback can be collected,but will not equal the input that created it-->well thats what they say anyway.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2015, 03:55:23 AM
The question being asked is-was all the energy transformed from one form to another?
That's not actually how the question read.

Quote
So all that had to be done was take the power avaliable that i gave you,and use that to determond if we produced the same amount of energy from that power as we produced in the form of heat,and stored in the form of the gas.
And it is impossible to answer that question literally without a given amount of time the power source was turned ON.

If you were simply looking for an answer to question if the total energy in your system is conserved, then the numbers presented in the diagram are irrelevant and no computation is required. But I am curious to see how you yourself would take that 60W source and determine the answer to your question. :)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 03:59:33 AM
And this is a clasic example.
The question being asked is-was all the energy transformed from one form to another?
Do we get out what we put in.
We already know the answer is yes,regardless of time and power to energy conversions,and the need for endless debate on what's what,and how things should be presented.
The facts are-we have an input,and an output and a storage.
All the outputs and storage have to equal the input,regardless of what the inputs and outputs are-->unless you have discovered a way to destroy energy-->this is your own beloved physics.
What go's in ,must come out or be stored.

Power can be converted into energy.Power is a measure of how much we CAN produce. It is not a measure of how much energy there actually is, but a way of describing how much could be produced.
Actually it isn't.  Power is the time derivative of energy.  It is the rate at which energy is transferred.
Quote

So all that had to be done was take the power avaliable that i gave you,and use that to determond if we produced the same amount of energy from that power as we produced in the form of heat,and stored in the form of the gas.
What you seem to be missing is that you just as one cannot read their current speed from their automobile's speedometer and determine distance, one cannot use power without integrating it over time to determine energy.  In the special case where power is constant, the integral is just that constant power level multiplied by the time interval that the power is applied.  In all other cases it is more complicated.
Quote
But what happened insted was a full refit of the space shuttles computing system--> and MH wonders why there is a 100 pages of !go no where! babble.
You may well feel that you have an idea clearly worked out in your head.  When you attempt to express that idea using ambiguous or even self-contradictory language, the chances that you will successfully convey that idea are poor.
Quote
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 05:02:19 AM
MH says read books-look on the net
Quote: http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/power-and-energy/
Power, on the other hand, is a measure of how much we CAN produce. It is not a measure of how much energy there actually is, but a way of describing how much could be produced.

Quote: What is a kilowatt hour? As a unit of measurment, it is actually the same thing as a joule, it is just a way of measuring energy.
It is very hard to use terms and measurements you guys like,when what we are being told is different depending on who is telling us.
It is unfortunate that the www has lots of misinformation.  Fortunately, one can check more than one reference to see if it other references support or contradict it.  If you read a bit further in the reference it states correctly:

Quote
1 Watt = 1 Joule per second

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 25, 2015, 06:30:55 AM
I think where many people go wrong is in the "units" of the values being discussed. I see many workings where units are left out, so that it is easy to get confused. The "units" must be respected and treated like any other algebraic value in equations. If the units don't work out all the way through, you've gone wrong somewhere. So it's a good idea to include the units in every calculation, not just the numbers themselves.

For example, the "units" of Power, the Watt, are in Joules per second, and "per" almost always indicates a division operation algebraically. 

1 W = 1 J/s  therefore
1 WattSecond = 1 Joule  (algebraically multiplying both sides by the unit "second")

So to convert from kiloWattHours to Joules properly, we need to do some algebra with the units, as well as with the numbers.

1 kWH = 1000 WattHours x 60 min/hour x 60 seconds/minute = 3 600 000 WattSeconds (or Joules).    (note the correct cancelling of the _units_ of time (hours, minutes) in the algebra.)

The kWH is a large unit of _energy_. This is what you pay for on your electric bill. You don't pay for how _fast_ you use energy, you pay for how _much_ you use.  The kW, or smaller Watt, is a _rate_ of energy usage.  If you use 1 kWH (3,600,000 Joules)  in one hour, you could express this as 1 kWH/H (one kiloWattHour per Hour)  and the "hours" units cancel algebraically and you are left with 1 kW, which is the _rate_ at which you have used, or dissipated, that amount of Joules of energy during that hour: 3,600,000 Joules per hour.

A slight confusion arises because the kiloWattHour and other such multiplications are commonly represented with a dash:  kW-H    that looks like a "minus" sign. But it is really a multiplication operation algebraically. I have avoided the use of this convention in the above remark.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 08:39:34 AM
That's not actually how the question read.
And it is impossible to answer that question literally without a given amount of time the power source was turned ON.

If you were simply looking for an answer to question if the total energy in your system is conserved, then the numbers presented in the diagram are irrelevant and no computation is required. But I am curious to see how you yourself would take that 60W source and determine the answer to your question. :)
The 60 watts is just what the cell uses when in operation V*I. No time is given because that is irrelevant to the question. The question remains,and applies for all devices-->will all the output energies(wether disipated or stored)equal the input energy?.The law of the conservation of energy says it will,and i was asking if the same applies to the electrolisis system i gave a diagram of.

If so,then that very same law says it is also possable to have an added energy output from an open system outside the closed system of the cell.
Like i said,if we are able to account for all the energy that is going into the cell,and that cell can switch another system from being pulled upon by gravity,to being pushed upon by becomeing buoyant,then any energy that can be gained by the later two is above that of the already accounted for energy used to create that change.

But enough of this on this thread,as it has been sidetracked too much already.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 11:40:35 AM
The 60 watts is just what the cell uses when in operation V*I. No time is given because that is irrelevant to the question. The question remains,and applies for all devices-->will all the output energies(wether disipated or stored)equal the input energy?.The law of the conservation of energy says it will,and i was asking if the same applies to the electrolisis system i gave a diagram of.

Energy is conserved in your electrolysis example.  If you wish to challenge that, then you are welcome to perform an energy balance and show a discrepancy.
Quote

If so,then that very same law says it is also possable to have an added energy output from an open system outside the closed system of the cell.
If you do not place a boundary around what you are evaluating then evaluation is basically meaningless. 

By example:  One could point to some vessel like a swimming pool and note its capacity:  Say 20,000 gallons and note that it is full.  Then one could point to a drain pipe delivering 1000 gph, and ask:  "When will the pipe run dry?"  The question only has a definite answer if the rate at which any input to pool is defined.  One way to define that is to prohibit any:  Close the system everywhere except the drain pipe output. 
Quote
Like i said,if we are able to account for all the energy that is going into the cell,and that cell can switch another system from being pulled upon by gravity,to being pushed upon by becomeing buoyant,then any energy that can be gained by the later two is above that of the already accounted for energy used to create that change.
An energy balance like any other balance calculation must account for all the credits and debits.  Selectively ignoring either is just accounting error.
Quote

But enough of this on this thread,as it has been sidetracked too much already.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 01:15:43 PM
Energy is conserved in your electrolysis example.  If you wish to challenge that, then you are welcome to perform an energy balance and show a discrepancy.If you do not place a boundary around what you are evaluating then evaluation is basically meaningless. 

I do not wish to challenge that at all,as it was the answer i needed in order to prove that extra energy can be produced via this system,when all energy has been accounted for within the electrolysis system.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 01:26:29 PM
I do not wish to challenge that at all,as it was the answer i needed in order to prove that extra energy can be produced via this system,when all energy has been accounted for within the electrolysis system.
If the energy accounting balances, which everytime it has ever been done correctly it always has, then there is neither surplus nor deficit.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 02:00:06 PM
If the energy accounting balances, which everytime it has ever been done correctly it always has, then there is neither surplus nor deficit.
I am assuming you are refering to the electrolisis unit?
If so,then i am fully aware that there is neither surplus nor deficit,and this is exactly what we want.
We have accounted for all the energy into the system,and ballance is maintained. ;)

It is this ballance that gives rise to the extra energy from the second part of the system,which is an open system to that of the electrolisis system.

But thats as far as we will take this here,as it is way off topic to this thread,and i now have confirmation from both you and poynt that the system is ballanced,and all energy is accounted for ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: poynt99 on January 25, 2015, 02:14:49 PM
The 60 watts is just what the cell uses when in operation V*I. No time is given because that is irrelevant to the question. The question remains,and applies for all devices-->will all the output energies(wether disipated or stored)equal the input energy?.The law of the conservation of energy says it will,and i was asking if the same applies to the electrolisis system i gave a diagram of.
Yes, I think we all understand that now, but the point is and was, that clarification was required due to a mixup of the terminology used in the question, and how the question came across. If one does not effectively say what they actually mean, then its like the conversation is taking place in two different languages (for eg. German and Mandarin), and misunderstandings and wasted time is the result. Agreed?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 02:25:25 PM
Yes, I think we all understand that now, but the point is and was, that clarification was required due to a mixup of the terminology used in the question, and how the question came across. If one does not effectively say what they actually mean, then its like the conversation is taking place in two different languages (for eg. German and Mandarin), and misunderstandings and wasted time is the result. Agreed?
Well i knew what i ment--.you guys just dont speak german or Mandarin like i do :)
All jokes aside-agreed poynt.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 25, 2015, 03:00:23 PM
@tinman
Quote
It is this ballance that gives rise to the extra energy from the second part
of the system,which is an open system to that of the electrolisis
system.
Now your thinking, the DWFTTW process appeared to the weak minded as a violation of physics because you cannot get more than what is already there. However their error was in the Energy accounting of an open system and a failure to understand what was there and available to use. You are correct and the rules which apply to closed systems do not always apply to open systems because obviously they are not the same thing.
If I put 1w of electric energy into a resistance heater I will always get 1w of heat out but if I put 1w of electrical energy into a heat pump I may get 5w of heat out. A resistance heater is a closed system and a heat pump is an open system...it's that simple. The critics are simply arguing that all systems must remain closed, they are arguing that the simple resistance heater is the only way of doing things which as we know is pure delusion. Why if they had their way we would have to install our wind turbines, heat pumps and solar panels inside dark closed boxes just to satisfy their twisted notion of reality.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 03:14:56 PM
@tinmanNow your thinking, the DWFTTW process appeared to the weak minded as a violation of physics because you cannot get more than what is already there. However their error was in the Energy accounting of an open system and a failure to understand what was there and available to use. You are correct and the rules which apply to closed systems do not always apply to open systems because obviously they are not the same thing.
If I put 1w of electric energy into a resistance heater I will always get 1w of heat out but if I put 1w of electrical energy into a heat pump I may get 5w of heat out. A resistance heater is a closed system and a heat pump is an open system...it's that simple. The critics are simply arguing that all systems must remain closed, they are arguing that the simple resistance heater is the only way of doing things which as we know is pure delusion. Why if they had their way we would have to install our wind turbines and solar panels inside closed boxes just to satisfy their twisted notion of reality.

AC
AC
Its time to put this bullsh-t about no system can put out more energy than it consumes to bed.
If you start a thread up about open systems supplying extra energy,then i will show the above mentioned system as a whole for all to see. I will show that both gravity and buoyancy(our open system) can indeed create that extra energy when coupled to a closed system-the electrolisis system mentioned above.

This would let this thread get back on topic ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 03:47:12 PM
I am assuming you are refering to the electrolisis unit?
If so,then i am fully aware that there is neither surplus nor deficit,and this is exactly what we want.
We have accounted for all the energy into the system,and ballance is maintained. ;)

It is this ballance that gives rise to the extra energy from the second part of the system,which is an open system to that of the electrolisis system.

But thats as far as we will take this here,as it is way off topic to this thread,and i now have confirmation from both you and poynt that the system is ballanced,and all energy is accounted for ;)
If measured properly, the books all balance.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 03:58:54 PM
@tinmanNow your thinking, the DWFTTW process appeared to the weak minded as a violation of physics because you cannot get more than what is already there.
The common mistake made by most people was that the thrust could only be generated by relative wind to the vehicle body.
Quote
However their error was in the Energy accounting of an open system
That is completely untrue.  The only energy source for that vehicle is the wind.
Quote
and a failure to understand what was there and available to use. You are correct and the rules which apply to closed systems do not always apply to open systems because obviously they are not the same thing.
If I put 1w of electric energy into a resistance heater I will always get 1w of heat out but if I put 1w of electrical energy into a heat pump I may get 5w of heat out.
No if you put 1W of electrical power into a heat pump, depending on the conditions you may move several times as much heat as operating energy using an air thermal reservoir or 10X or more using a liquid thermal reservoir.
Quote
A resistance heater is a closed system and a heat pump is an open system...it's that simple.
Again you are wrong.  A heat pump moves energy from a lower temperature heat reservoir to a higher temperature one.  An undefined source reservoir could have a zero capacity to a very large heat content.  Undefined, there is nothing that can be said of the heat pump's ultimate capacity or COP.
Quote
The critics are simply arguing that all systems must remain closed, they are arguing that the simple resistance heater is the only way of doing things which as we know is pure delusion.
You conflate the requirement to define, and therefore bound a system in order to quantify its characteristics with the method of operation.  You are simply confused.
Quote
Why if they had their way we would have to install our wind turbines, heat pumps and solar panels inside dark closed boxes just to satisfy their twisted notion of reality.
No, in order to quantify the performance of any of those items we have to bound the respective energy source for each.
Quote

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 04:08:30 PM
If measured properly, the books all balance.
excellent.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 25, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
And then there are those that feel a closed system is only "perspective"..






Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 25, 2015, 04:44:59 PM
And then there are those that feel a closed system is only "perspective"..
A closed system would be like this example-->a battery conected to an electric motor thats conected to a generator,thats conected back to the battery. The outcome is a negative result.

An example of an open system is--> a solar pannel conected to a motor thats conected to a generator thats conected to a battery. The outcome is positive.
The open system is a system that is conected to mother nature,and this is why the heat pump will output more energy than we had to put into it,as it uses the open system of nature to provide the extra energy.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Floor on January 25, 2015, 05:05:34 PM
@ all readers

    Is it a myth that magnets can do work cyclically
                                          or
     is it a myth that magnets can not do work cyclically ?

                Please find the attached  3 PDF files the new file  "Ramp 7.pdf", also (Mag ramp 1.pdf)
                and the file "resurrection.pdf " wihch I posted when I first asked this question under this topic.
                                       
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Floor on January 25, 2015, 05:23:07 PM
I was not able to read the Ramp 7.pdf file I up loaded.  (tech problem)

So I am attaching it again.

       cheers
                  floor

                           
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Floor on January 25, 2015, 05:26:45 PM
Note

The ramp must be held very firmly to a large mass, else the
consideable kick from the speres's launch will dampen the
sphere's movement.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: wattsup on January 25, 2015, 05:51:24 PM
Now that things are back to normal maybe we can get into the crux of things. hehehe

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.

@tinman

Yep, our second son is named Adam. He just graduated from university as a Software Engineer and started working two weeks later.

Maybe this post will help you a bit to see the magnet in a different light. hehehe

@TK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRby1Wilv-Q

Your post went totally unnoticed although this thread is supposed to treat issues of magnet, myths and misconceptions, a superconductive magnet would be on topic as well and very apropos.

So why do you think it is possible for a magnet to "superconduct"? Why should it super conduct when it is near frozen solid when logic would have us think the opposite should occur. Freezing slows things down hence it should have a negative impact of the magnetic performance, but we see that nature will always want to surprise us with great effects that divulge much more then what is seen on the surface.

So this, for me, just shows that even magnets are fighting against their own internal cancellation. You see, in our minds eye, most people may visualize that an atom is an atom, so all similar elemental atoms are identical copies of each other and we will think that this mass is composed of this perfect tapestry of 3D atomic get-togetherness and that every part of that mass will react in the same way. But in nature or man made devices, nothing is really perfect.

So the same applies to our magnets. You have perfect atoms and you have defective atoms. The perfect atoms are doing their job and have perfect liberty to do so. The imperfect atoms have a much harder time to perform since their physical imperfections render them weaker, slower and the majority of those weaker atoms will not be able to meet the perfect timing and thus they will work against the perfect atoms and all combined, you get this particular magnetic RMS performance that we see every day.

Neo magnets on the other hand are manufactured with a little more care in their elemental choices and the result is more magnetic action per mass but it will never equal that of a cheaper imperfectly made superconductive magnet. WHY?

Well, when the magnet gets frozen, what gets frozen are the weaker atoms that were causing all that internal cancellation inside the magnet and now that they are frozen, the perfect atoms can now work totally unhindered thus you now see the true maximum ability of that magnet. If that same mass of magnet was composed entirely of perfect atoms, you would not need to freeze it to liberate its full potential which would be multiple times stronger then a standard neo having the same mass. They would indeed become super duper magnets.

The superconductive analogy for this could be two guys, one is a very fit weightlifter and the other is this scrawny built guy and both are stuck in a meat freezer. While the scrawny guy is disoriented and shivering and complaining, the fit guy instinctively just starts doing push ups and by doing so can maintain a reasonable body heat. The scrawny guy then starts doing his own push ups but flops down after his 5th push-up, is rendered immobile and quickly freezes up. This leaves the fit guy alone, without any "distractions" to totally concentrate on surviving the ordeal.

We are slowly getting closer since we are now at the nano technology stage and already some materials are really incredible, but we still have a ways to go before we get to the hyper technology stage where we eventually will be able to create objects, atom by atom. Here is a start.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EogdalfXF4c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0&index=1&list=PLB8KzsKt4e82elS9LsBKlXUxm4HEGkjUS

Now look at this one. Listen to the sound of an atom moving. The crunchy sound has so much power in just that one atom that is dragged on a surface. Imagine the sound they must make when their cores swing in tandem to a passing magnetic or pulsed influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbLvy-ayi4A&index=3&list=PLB8KzsKt4e82elS9LsBKlXUxm4HEGkjUS

The above also applies to the notion of an ideal coil. There is no ideal coil because copper atoms have the same problem. If you could sift through a pile of copper atoms and pick only the perfect ones, then make your copper wire with those, you could then wind an ideal coil where the turns do not touch (to prevent cross cancellation). With perfect copper wire, you should be able to pass all the power of a car batter through a 16 AWG wire. Resistance would be zero since resistance winds up being the percentage of atoms that cancel out a known energy input.

The point I am trying to make is this. Magnets suffer from the same problem our copper wires suffer from and that is built-in internal cancellation. For the magnet, there is nothing really we can do to better this and for now we have to accept the magnetic forces available to us but at least a frozen magnet shows us that the true magnetic ability can be multiples of times higher then the original design usage if cancellation can be reduced. We already have started long ago by producing oriented steel cores and laminations (what @JackH played with when he was a live) so we actually do know that by orienting atoms, their internal swings will be more in tandem to one directionality thus being more responsive to the single directionality of a passing magnet or a pulsed primary coil. 

The second point is much more important for all of us since we work our copper coils manually. The magnet is telling us, "it's in my atomic make-up and my atomic make-up influences the copper atomic make-up", so if we keep treating our copper wire atoms as only being influenced by a passing magnetic "field", we will be stuck just as we are now, since we have 100 something years to prove it. We will not design our devices with direct pointal intent. We will always think the field permeates all and does the same thing to ever copper atom in the same direction of output influence and this field just homogenizes copper atoms to all react in the same way. That is a total fallacy that guys have to get out of their heads if they are to advance. Otherwise, why is gold wire a better conductor?

There is a very simple proof of this that we see guys experimenting with everyday. Pass just the south pole of a magnet beside the end of a coil with a core. The magnet approaches the coil, we see the scope rise from zero then fall to zero. The magnet departs from the coil, we see the scope fall from zero then rise to zero. Both scope directions in one passage by one polarity of the magnet. Think about that. The coil is wound in a circle of 360 degrees. The supposed field of the magnet cannot have two directions of impress since it is the same polarity at work on both sides of that one end of the coil. IT HAS TO BE THE COPPER ATOMS THAT ARE SWINGING IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION BUT THE 360 DEGREES OF THE COIL TURNS IT INTO TWO DISTINCT HALVES OF A SINEWAVE, SO ONE DIRECTION, ONE POLARITY CAUSES TWO SUCCESSIVE BUT OPPOSING OUTPUT POLARITIES ON A CIRCLE OF WIRE. YES THE COPPER ATOM CORES ARE ALL TURNING THE SAME WAY WHEN LOOKED FROM ABOVE, BUT FROM INSIDE THE WIRE, THE DIRECTIONS SWITCH. There is also a great deal of cancellation involved here as well while you see that sinewave.

Only if we change our perspective of what and how and why our copper atoms respond to magnetism, can our natural imagination kick into a new gear and new toys will abound from there. Once we realize the physical limitations of the copper materials we use today, we will learn to work around those problems and bingo, OU will start to be more of a normal thing then this all consuming impossibility we are trying to fight against every day. But in the interim there are many new ways to do experiments already and new things to learn.

Now imagine this and I know this is another long @wattups post with lots of blah blah, but this is the only way I know how to explain stuff from bench and logic works. Imagine your copper wire. It has perfect atoms and a varying degree of defective atoms. Some atoms respond perfectly to all the frequencies, some atoms, will respond to the resonance frequency showing the highest spikes on the scope but those atoms are much fewer in number hence your amperage drops and voltage rises. Some atoms are so defective that they only respond to a small range of frequencies. So basically, if one 14 awg wire was pulsed with several frequencies at once, 2,3, 4 or more, each time you add a pulse and the frequency arrives at a frequency that makes more copper atoms swing, your output will increase. Add another frequency and if you find the right one where the output increases further, you just struck another good frequency for a good number of those atoms. So you can have pulsing several frequencies into the same wire and if they are well tuned, you should be able to produce as much energy as the rated AWG of the wire.

When the law of conservation was written, so pompous an idea, they forgot to mention, "if man continues on the same road we are on now (which was then), he will never get OU". My personal way of saying it is, "if man does not smarten up and shed all this field/electron crap, they will never realize news ways of winding coils to circumvent the atomic constraints of our copper wire and take advantage of the pointal magnetic influence and therefore the laws will prevail".

wattsup

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 25, 2015, 06:42:09 PM
@ all readers

    Is it a myth that magnets can do work cyclically
                                          or
     is it a myth that magnets can not do work cyclically ?

                Please find the attached  3 PDF files the new file  "Ramp 7.pdf", also (Mag ramp 1.pdf)
                and the file "resurrection.pdf " wihch I posted when I first asked this question under this topic.
                                     

"Can this series be looped?"

NO. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 07:09:51 PM
A closed system would be like this example-->a battery conected to an electric motor thats conected to a generator,thats conected back to the battery. The outcome is a negative result.

An example of an open system is--> a solar pannel conected to a motor thats conected to a generator thats conected to a battery. The outcome is positive.
The open system is a system that is conected to mother nature,and this is why the heat pump will output more energy than we had to put into it,as it uses the open system of nature to provide the extra energy.
If you wanted to know the capability of such a system, then you bound it.  One way to bound it is to substitute an artificial source for the sun.  This is actually done daily in the test of solar PV modules by their manufacturers.  Another way to do it is to use instrumentation to measure the incident sunlight.  This is also done daily at outdoor facilities such as the USA government's NREL facilities in Golden CO (who also do the former).  Now, the inputs and outputs of the system are known and the system has been virtually closed using maths.

Now, suppose that you have two heat pumps that you want to compare.  Unbeknownst to you:  one sinks its heat exchanger into clay soil 100' above the water table.  The other identical system sinks its heat exchanger into sandy soil 10' above the water table.  Both perform their job.  One uses far less energy than the other.  Because you left the systems "open", there is no accounting for why one does better than the other.  Instrumenting the heat exchangers once again allows measuring the actual input to the system and its performance can be rationally quantified.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 07:15:03 PM
@ all readers

    Is it a myth that magnets can do work cyclically
Yes it is.
Quote
                                          or
     is it a myth that magnets can not do work cyclically ?
No it is not.
Quote

                Please find the attached  3 PDF files the new file  "Ramp 7.pdf", also (Mag ramp 1.pdf)
                and the file "resurrection.pdf " wihch I posted when I first asked this question under this topic.
                                     
You can draw cartoons all day long, it does not change the fact that you lose system potential energy with each traverse up and over a given ramp.  Just ask Ltseung how his and his Hong Kong inventor's group's efforts to build a SMOT that can close the loop have faired over the years.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 07:35:20 PM
Now that things are back to normal maybe we can get into the crux of things. hehehe

@tinman

Yep, our second son is named Adam. He just graduated from university as a Software Engineer and started working two weeks later.

Maybe this post will help you a bit to see the magnet in a different light. hehehe

@TK

Your post went totally unnoticed although this thread is supposed to treat issues of magnet, myths and misconceptions, a superconductive magnet would be on topic as well and very apropos.

So why do you think it is possible for a magnet to "superconduct"? Why should it super conduct when it is near frozen solid when logic would have us think the opposite should occur. Freezing slows things down hence it should have a negative impact of the magnetic performance, but we see that nature will always want to surprise us with great effects that divulge much more then what is seen on the surface.
Maybe you didn't notice but metallic conductors exhibit increasing resistance with temperature.
Quote

So this, for me, just shows that even magnets are fighting against their own internal cancellation. You see, in our minds eye, most people may visualize that an atom is an atom, so all similar elemental atoms are identical copies of each other and we will think that this mass is composed of this perfect tapestry of 3D atomic get-togetherness and that every part of that mass will react in the same way. But in nature or man made devices, nothing is really perfect.
What are you even trying to say here?  Is this the head of a lovely garden path?
Quote

So the same applies to our magnets. You have perfect atoms and you have defective atoms. The perfect atoms are doing their job and have perfect liberty to do so. The imperfect atoms have a much harder time to perform since their physical imperfections render them weaker, slower and the majority of those weaker atoms will not be able to meet the perfect timing and thus they will work against the perfect atoms and all combined, you get this particular magnetic RMS performance that we see every day.
This is indeed a lovely garden path.
Quote

Neo magnets on the other hand are manufactured with a little more care in their elemental choices and the result is more magnetic action per mass but it will never equal that of a cheaper imperfectly made superconductive magnet. WHY?

Well, when the magnet gets frozen, what gets frozen are the weaker atoms that were causing all that internal cancellation inside the magnet and now that they are frozen, the perfect atoms can now work totally unhindered thus you now see the true maximum ability of that magnet. If that same mass of magnet was composed entirely of perfect atoms, you would not need to freeze it to liberate its full potential which would be multiple times stronger then a standard neo having the same mass. They would indeed become super duper magnets.
This is a marvelous hypothesis.  Got any evidence for this visit to Wonderland?
Quote

The superconductive analogy for this could be two guys, one is a very fit weightlifter and the other is this scrawny built guy and both are stuck in a meat freezer. While the scrawny guy is disoriented and shivering and complaining, the fit guy instinctively just starts doing push ups and by doing so can maintain a reasonable body heat. The scrawny guy then starts doing his own push ups but flops down after his 5th push-up, is rendered immobile and quickly freezes up. This leaves the fit guy alone, without any "distractions" to totally concentrate on surviving the ordeal.
What kind of SEM do we have to use to see these magnet bodybuilders and weaklings?
Quote

We are slowly getting closer since we are now at the nano technology stage and already some materials are really incredible, but we still have a ways to go before we get to the hyper technology stage where we eventually will be able to create objects, atom by atom. Here is a start.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EogdalfXF4c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCX78-8-q0&index=1&list=PLB8KzsKt4e82elS9LsBKlXUxm4HEGkjUS

Now look at this one. Listen to the sound of an atom moving. The crunchy sound has so much power in just that one atom that is dragged on a surface. Imagine the sound they must make when their cores swing in tandem to a passing magnetic or pulsed influence.
Imagine the pitter patter of female atoms watching the manly pumping of the buff male atoms. Imagine
Quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbLvy-ayi4A&index=3&list=PLB8KzsKt4e82elS9LsBKlXUxm4HEGkjUS

The above also applies to the notion of an ideal coil. There is no ideal coil because copper atoms have the same problem. If you could sift through a pile of copper atoms and pick only the perfect ones, then make your copper wire with those, you could then wind an ideal coil where the turns do not touch (to prevent cross cancellation). With perfect copper wire, you should be able to pass all the power of a car batter through a 16 AWG wire. Resistance would be zero since resistance winds up being the percentage of atoms that cancel out a known energy input.
Why not 30 AWG or 40 AWG?
Quote

The point I am trying to make is this. Magnets suffer from the same problem our copper wires suffer from and that is built-in internal cancellation. For the magnet, there is nothing really we can do to better this and for now we have to accept the magnetic forces available to us but at least a frozen magnet shows us that the true magnetic ability can be multiples of times higher then the original design usage if cancellation can be reduced. We already have started long ago by producing oriented steel cores and laminations (what @JackH played with when he was a live) so we actually do know that by orienting atoms, their internal swings will be more in tandem to one directionality thus being more responsive to the single directionality of a passing magnet or a pulsed primary coil. 
You are way, way down your garden path now.
Quote

The second point is much more important for all of us since we work our copper coils manually. The magnet is telling us, "it's in my atomic make-up and my atomic make-up influences the copper atomic make-up", so if we keep treating our copper wire atoms as only being influenced by a passing magnetic "field", we will be stuck just as we are now, since we have 100 something years to prove it. We will not design our devices with direct pointal intent. We will always think the field permeates all and does the same thing to ever copper atom in the same direction of output influence and this field just homogenizes copper atoms to all react in the same way. That is a total fallacy that guys have to get out of their heads if they are to advance. Otherwise, why is gold wire a better conductor?
Gold is the inferior conductor.  Copper has almost 1.5 times the conductivity of gold.  When you are going to construct a garden path it might help if you don't rely on complete fantasy.
Quote
There is a very simple proof of this that we see guys experimenting with everyday. Pass just the south pole of a magnet beside the end of a coil with a core. The magnet approaches the coil, we see the scope rise from zero then fall to zero. The magnet departs from the coil, we see the scope fall from zero then rise to zero. Both scope directions in one passage by one polarity of the magnet. Think about that. The coil is wound in a circle of 360 degrees. The supposed field of the magnet cannot have two directions of impress since it is the same polarity at work on both sides of that one end of the coil. IT HAS TO BE THE COPPER ATOMS THAT ARE SWINGING IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION BUT THE 360 DEGREES OF THE COIL TURNS IT INTO TWO DISTINCT HALVES OF A SINEWAVE, SO ONE DIRECTION, ONE POLARITY CAUSES TWO SUCCESSIVE BUT OPPOSING OUTPUT POLARITIES ON A CIRCLE OF WIRE. YES THE COPPER ATOM CORES ARE ALL TURNING THE SAME WAY WHEN LOOKED FROM ABOVE, BUT FROM INSIDE THE WIRE, THE DIRECTIONS SWITCH. There is also a great deal of cancellation involved here as well while you see that sinewave.
No, it is as was found nearly 200 years ago:  The rate of change of the flux density crossing a conductor sets the induction.  You can set the most powerful PM you can find next to a wire all day long and as long as neither moves and you don't use an external permeable piece to alter the field, there is no induction.
Quote

Only if we change our perspective of what and how and why our copper atoms respond to magnetism, can our natural imagination kick into a new gear and new toys will abound from there. Once we realize the physical limitations of the copper materials we use today, we will learn to work around those problems and bingo, OU will start to be more of a normal thing then this all consuming impossibility we are trying to fight against every day. But in the interim there are many new ways to do experiments already and new things to learn.
Perhaps if you would first learn how things actually behave rather than asserting one wrong claim after another you might be able to use things like magnets and wires to advantage.
Quote

Now imagine this and I know this is another long @wattups post with lots of blah blah, but this is the only way I know how to explain stuff from bench and logic works. Imagine your copper wire. It has perfect atoms and a varying degree of defective atoms. Some atoms respond perfectly to all the frequencies, some atoms, will respond to the resonance frequency showing the highest spikes on the scope but those atoms are much fewer in number hence your amperage drops and voltage rises. Some atoms are so defective that they only respond to a small range of frequencies. So basically, if one 14 awg wire was pulsed with several frequencies at once, 2,3, 4 or more, each time you add a pulse and the frequency arrives at a frequency that makes more copper atoms swing, your output will increase. Add another frequency and if you find the right one where the output increases further, you just struck another good frequency for a good number of those atoms. So you can have pulsing several frequencies into the same wire and if they are well tuned, you should be able to produce as much energy as the rated AWG of the wire.
That's more assertion without evidence.
Quote

When the law of conservation was written, so pompous an idea, they forgot to mention, "if man continues on the same road we are on now (which was then), he will never get OU". My personal way of saying it is, "if man does not smarten up and shed all this field/electron crap, they will never realize news ways of winding coils to circumvent the atomic constraints of our copper wire and take advantage of the pointal magnetic influence and therefore the laws will prevail".
Asserting pant load after pant load of BS does not lead to new knowledge.
Quote

wattsup
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 25, 2015, 11:26:12 PM
@wattsup
Quote
IT HAS TO BE THE COPPER ATOMS THAT ARE SWINGING IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION BUT THE 360 DEGREES OF THE COIL TURNS IT INTO TWO DISTINCT HALVES OF A SINEWAVE, SO ONE DIRECTION, ONE POLARITY CAUSES TWO SUCCESSIVE BUT OPPOSING OUTPUT POLARITIES ON A CIRCLE OF WIRE. YES THE COPPER ATOM CORES ARE ALL TURNING THE SAME WAY WHEN LOOKED FROM ABOVE, BUT FROM INSIDE THE WIRE, THE DIRECTIONS SWITCH. There is also a great deal of cancellation involved here as well while you see that sinewave.


This is one of those experiments a person has to do at the bench to really understand what is happening. As the magnet moves towards the coil the magnetic field could also be said to be expanding into that area. That is the coil does not know whether a magnetic field is moving with a magnet or if the magnetic field is expanding/contracting from another coil. As Faraday said-- it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does.


If the magnet is moving towards the coil the magnetic field can be said to be expanding into the coil area which induces a voltage across the coil terminals (+/-).
If the magnet is moving away from the coil the magnetic field can be said to be contracting from the coil area which induces a voltage across the coil terminals (-/+).
If the magnetic field is not expanding into an area or contracting from it then no voltage is induced and we see this when the moving magnet is aligned at the center of the coil.


Note an expanding N field induces the same voltage polarity as a contracting S field and an expanding S field induces induces the same voltage polarity as a contracting N field.


I use the standard terminology so people might understand what I am saying however I don't use them personally. There are no lines or fluxes or flows or poles or polarity in my view and they are simply a convenient distraction inhibiting people from learning and thinking for themselves. Our universe is actually very simple in it's nature, it's so damn simple it defies the imagination, lol.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 26, 2015, 01:17:51 AM
@Mark


I was reading through the last posts when a thought occurred to me, why are you here?.


I mean look at my last post, it has some kind of progression, it offers some useful information and hopefully provokes people to think about things. Then we come to your last post which is condescending and arrogant and doesn't provoke thought concerning much of anything. It amounts to little more than googled one liners to make other people look stupid, not unlike most all your posts.


So here is a suggestion, go read the original works of some of the greatest minds in our history. You will find none of them forced anything on anyone. The most intelligent people always ask people to consider their perspective and attempt to justify it in a meaningful way. The most intelligent people always layout their thoughts in a comprehensive way and let the listener discover the answer. This is what we call learning Mark and the greatest minds, the most intelligent people in our history all did this while you do not.


So if you are here to help people I would suggest you try and hold a rational conversation like an actual human being because what your doing is ridiculous and counter productive. You know I do not always agree with others such as MH and TK but I do respect them and their opinions because they act like grown ups and can hold a rational respectful conversation with other people.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 01:27:07 AM
@Mark


I was reading through the last posts when a thought occurred to me, why are you here?.
Because I choose to be here, just as you choose to be here.
Quote


I mean look at my last post, it has some kind of progression, it offers some useful information and hopefully provokes people to think about things. Then we come to your last post which is condescending and arrogant and doesn't provoke thought concerning much of anything. It amounts to little more than googled one liners to make other people look stupid, not unlike most all your posts.
Speaking of progression where is an example of free energy progress that you claim?  I asked you to cite an example of progress.  Did I miss your reply?  My last reply was to wattsup's error laden diatribe.  Would you prefer that the garden path to wonderland he laid out be accepted as truth?  If so, why?
Quote


So here is a suggestion, go read the original works of some of the greatest minds in our history. You will find none of them forced anything on anyone. The most intelligent people always ask people to consider their perspective and attempt to justify it in a meaningful way. The most intelligent people always layout their thoughts in a comprehensive way and let the listener discover the answer. This is what we call learning Mark and the greatest minds, the most intelligent people in our history all did this while you do not.
Considering the active and willful rejection of what the giants have told us by many here, you might wish to reconsider your assertions.
Quote


So if you are here to help people I would suggest you try and hold a rational conversation like an actual human being because what your doing is ridiculous and counter productive. You know I do not always agree with others such as MH and TK but I do respect them and their opinions because they act like grown ups and can hold a rational respectful conversation with other people.
If you are claiming my posts are irrational, then kindly cite an example.
Quote


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 26, 2015, 02:08:47 AM
@Mark

AC
Quote
I was reading through the last posts when a thought occurred to me, why are you here?.
Many are starting to ask the very same question.

Quote
So if you are here to help people I would suggest you try and hold a rational conversation like an actual human being because what your doing is ridiculous and counter productive
.
There are times when the ridiculous are clearly present,like we should follow the magnetic example given to us by science and physics,but they are yet to explain the what produces the physical force within that magnetic field. But to be fair,are you misinterpreting the !counter productive! ?__>is it more a case that MarkE is correct,and we just dont like that,as that means we are incorrect?.

Quote
So here is a suggestion, go read the original works of some of the greatest minds in our history. You will find none of them forced anything on anyone. The most intelligent people always ask people to consider their perspective and attempt to justify it in a meaningful way. The most intelligent people always layout their thoughts in a comprehensive way and let the listener discover the answer. This is what we call learning Mark and the greatest minds, the most intelligent people in our history all did this while you do not.
Some are stuck fast in the dogma that is common physics,and have no room for change. They see what has been shown to work around a few basic test,and decide that there is no need to look any further. This can be seen with the magnetic field-things work around there theories of the magnetic field,so that's that,no need to look any further. But it is clear that they have missed something some where along the line,as there is still no answer to basic questions we ask about the magnetic force. One would think if there modle and understanding was correct,then the answers would be right there in front of them.

Quote
I mean look at my last post, it has some kind of progression, it offers some useful information and hopefully provokes people to think about things. Then we come to your last post which is condescending and arrogant and doesn't provoke thought concerning much of anything. It amounts to little more than googled one liners to make other people look stupid, not unlike most all your posts.
For some,it's a matter of having to be right wether right or not. This happens so much in the scientific comunity-->take the cold fusion fiasco for example. Some have a need to be king,and they like others to see that they are what they seek to be. It's funny to watch these guys sometime's-you will notice that they wont take on another that they feel may know just as much!if not more!than they do. So far i have seen three such instances in the last couple of weeks,and it's funny when one questions the others opinion,all go's quiet lol.

We all know who is number 1 here-and number two. The good thing about these two guys is that they go out of there way to help you out,and there actually open to looking into AND even building/replicating so called OU devices-->because there mind is still open. Mark would be sitting at number 3 here in my opinion as far as knowledge go's-and thats not to bad at all,but i feel he is a closed book,and has little room for change.

Quote
You know I do not always agree with others such as MH and TK but I do respect them and their opinions because they act like grown ups and can hold a rational respectful conversation with other people.
And you can take that to the bank ;)
hell-This is a little snipet from  MH's last post to me-Quote: Do you understand the most basic basic fundamentals about electricity and magnetism?   (This is a generic "you") Because clearly if you don't understand them, then you are handicapped and simply can't function properly when it comes to electronics.
Lol,but thats all good-sometimes i deserve that sort of a comment with the odd things i post-->or i may forget to include the full schematic for the space shuttles instrument cluster in my description,or it may be a case that they dont speak mandarin like i do ;D
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 26, 2015, 02:22:26 AM
Then there is the classic:  Failure to answer a question about a circuit that consists of a power supply and one single lousy component.

If you (generic) can't answer a question properly about a circuit that consists of a single component, then why should I listen to you at all?

It's like I said, you go to a car mechanic and you find out he has no clue that there are two sets of socket wrenches, English and metric.  I don't think anybody would want that guy to service and repair their car.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 26, 2015, 02:26:53 AM

It's like I said, you go to a car mechanic and you find out he has no clue that there are two sets of socket wrenches, English and metric.  I don't think anybody would want that guy to service and repair their car.


There are two sets of sockets?  Great Scott!  No wonder my wrenches do not always fit.

(Just kidding.  Actually a very good analogue.)

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 02:30:18 AM


Quote from: allcanadian on Today at 01:17:51 AM (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg434930/#msg434930)
"I was reading through the last posts when a thought occurred to me, why are you here?."


Many are starting to ask the very same question.


The question that answers itself...nevertheless, I believe  I provided the answer many moons ago.

That particular moniker may be past its 'best before' date...time for a name change...again.

Sarkstichintime may be suitable.

It may be advisable to recruit another bumboy, however.

Regards...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 26, 2015, 03:40:27 AM
Is Crap-Z-ro still posting?

I mean, I see that he is posting but do not read them as he is on "IGNORE".  I can only imagine what pearls of wisdom he is sharing now.  Let me guess....anal ...gay activities, or other deviant sexual activities?

Good to know that some things do not change.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 04:21:05 AM
Is Crap-Z-ro still posting?

I mean, I see that he is posting but do not read them as he is on "IGNORE".  I can only imagine what pearls of wisdom he is sharing now.  Let me guess....anal ...gay activities, or other deviant sexual activities?

Good to know that some things do not change.

Bill

If it wasn't readily apparent before that the forum's resident arse kisser has lets say an avid repressed preoccupation with homosexuality, then it should be by now.

Guess he didn't want to give it away by including the revealing prefex 'butt' to his moniker 'pirate'.

If it walks like a gay duck and sucks mallard schlong like a gay duck...then its a gay duck.

It is, as it appears to be.

Regards...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 04:53:22 AM
Is Crap-Z-ro still posting?

I mean, I see that he is posting but do not read them as he is on "IGNORE".  I can only imagine what pearls of wisdom he is sharing now.  Let me guess....anal ...gay activities, or other deviant sexual activities?

Good to know that some things do not change.

Bill
You are not missing much.  It would be a favor to me if you wouldn't stoke the fire so to speak.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 26, 2015, 04:54:53 AM
You are not missing much.  It would be a favor to me if you wouldn't stoke the fire so to speak.

Understood.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 05:10:42 AM
You are not missing much.  It would be a favor to me if you wouldn't stoke the fire so to speak.

 Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:53:22 AM (http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg434980/#msg434980)<blockquote>You are not missing much.  It would be a favor to me if you wouldn't stoke the fire so to speak.


Arse kisser's reply:

"Understood.

Bill "   



Folks, that lip smacking sound you may have heard was the forum resident closet homosexual arse kisser stopping work momentarily to take direction from one of the handlers who's arse he loves to kiss.

A little too late for that tho...ol' Cappy's door has been knocked on again, and he's not in a good mood.

Regards...


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 05:13:29 AM
Understood.

Bill
Thanks.  It helps reduce clutter.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 26, 2015, 05:17:56 AM

Quote
Then there is the classic:  Failure to answer a question about a circuit that consists of a power supply and one single lousy component.

If you (generic) can't answer a question properly about a circuit that consists of a single component, then why should I listen to you at all?
So dose this circuit have one or two components?-transistor + another component,or just the 1 single lousy component?.

Quote
It's like I said, you go to a car mechanic and you find out he has no clue that there are two sets of socket wrenches, English and metric.  I don't think anybody would want that guy to service and repair their car.
MH-you have not provided enough information for us to ascertain as to wether the mechanic can survice our car or not.
1-Is the mechanic old school or new school?-is he apt with the metric or the imperial?.
2-what is the make and modle of this car,so as we know if it is a metric or imperial fitted vehicle.
3-You have stated metric as one,but what is the imperial scale you are refering to>?
A-Whitworth
B-BSF
C-BA
D-AF

For us to be able to make an accurate assumption of wether or not the mechanic can service our car with confidence,PLEASE include all the details we need to make this assumption ;)
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 26, 2015, 05:20:44 AM
@Mark
I guess what I should have said was you seem like an intelligent person and I think you have a lot to offer but I don't understand why you picking posts apart versus trying to move the conversation forward. I know I have and continue to do the same thing sometimes as well as many others here but I have come to understand it is pointless. In fact it is kind of amazing that "We" as responsible adults could act like this and I'm sure even our children would find it it embarassing to know their parents would act like this.
This place just boggles my mind that a group of supposedly responsible adults cannot seem to get along and debate the issues rationally, we can do better I think. I am going to make the effort to change and I would hope others would consider it as well.
 
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 05:28:33 AM
@Mark
I guess what I should have said was you seem like an intelligent person and I think you have a lot to offer but I don't understand why you picking posts apart versus trying to move the conversation forward. I know I have and continue to do the same thing sometimes as well as many others here but I have come to understand it is pointless. In fact it is kind of amazing that "We" as responsible adults could act like this and I'm sure even our children would find it it embarassing to know their parents would act like this.
This place just boggles my mind that a group of supposedly responsible adults cannot seem to get along and debate the issues rationally, we can do better I think. I am going to make the effort to change and I would hope others would consider it as well.


Because thats what he gets paid to do.

Regards...


 
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Pirate88179 on January 26, 2015, 05:30:30 AM
@Mark
I guess what I should have said was you seem like an intelligent person and I think you have a lot to offer but I don't understand why you picking posts apart versus trying to move the conversation forward. I know I have and continue to do the same thing sometimes as well as many others here but I have come to understand it is pointless. In fact it is kind of amazing that "We" as responsible adults could act like this and I'm sure even our children would find it it embarassing to know their parents would act like this.
This place just boggles my mind that a group of supposedly responsible adults cannot seem to get along and debate the issues rationally, we can do better I think. I am going to make the effort to change and I would hope others would consider it as well.
 
AC

AC:

Discussing is very good, arguing is not productive.

I too will try to do better.

Bill
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 05:33:25 AM
AC:

Discussing is very good, arguing is not productive.

I too will try to do better.

Bill

Careful, looks like he's got an opening in his arse kissing schedule.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 05:49:04 AM
So dose this circuit have one or two components?-transistor + another component,or just the 1 single lousy component?.
Technically, MH's circuit had three components:  An ideal voltage source, a switch and the inductor.
Quote
MH-you have not provided enough information for us to ascertain as to wether the mechanic can survice our car or not.
1-Is the mechanic old school or new school?-is he apt with the metric or the imperial?.
2-what is the make and modle of this car,so as we know if it is a metric or imperial fitted vehicle.
3-You have stated metric as one,but what is the imperial scale you are refering to>?
A-Whitworth
B-BSF
C-BA
D-AF

For us to be able to make an accurate assumption of wether or not the mechanic can service our car with confidence,PLEASE include all the details we need to make this assumption ;)
If the mechanic doesn't knw the difference between metric and imperial, he probably doesn't know much about cars.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 05:52:18 AM
@Mark
I guess what I should have said was you seem like an intelligent person and I think you have a lot to offer but I don't understand why you picking posts apart versus trying to move the conversation forward.
If fundamental falsities are not addressed, then it is just a trip down someone's garden path.  Is that what you want?
Quote
I know I have and continue to do the same thing sometimes as well as many others here but I have come to understand it is pointless. In fact it is kind of amazing that "We" as responsible adults could act like this and I'm sure even our children would find it it embarassing to know their parents would act like this.
This place just boggles my mind that a group of supposedly responsible adults cannot seem to get along and debate the issues rationally, we can do better I think. I am going to make the effort to change and I would hope others would consider it as well.
 
AC
At various times people have lodged allegations against me for supposedly doing things such as "twisting" their words.  When I have asked for examples of the alleged bad behavior I none have been cited.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 05:55:17 AM
Don't rise to the troll's bait...he's not worth the time or effort.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 26, 2015, 06:08:14 AM
Technically, MH's circuit had three components:  An ideal voltage source, a switch and the inductor.
Quote
If the mechanic doesn't knw the difference between metric and imperial, he probably doesn't know much about cars.
So todays digital service technicians who dont know all about analog systems are probably crap at there job as well?.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 26, 2015, 06:30:07 AM
Tinman:

Chris' failure to answer the question about the simple circuit with only a single inductor connected to a power supply took place about two weeks ago in this thread.  Mark answered it after Chris ran out of gas.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 06:42:03 AM
Tinman:

Chris' failure to answer the question about the simple circuit with only a single inductor connected to a power supply took place about two weeks ago in this thread.  Mark answered it after Chris ran out of gas.

MileHigh

Chris could not tolerate the tag team trolling of the forum dingo trolls...which is why they do it that way = $ucess !

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 26, 2015, 06:50:59 AM
Just go read the thread again and see Chris desperately trying to answer the simple question.  It's about qualifying people to see if they are credible when they say they understand electronics and are here to "teach."

So your statement is just pure spin again.  Do that more and you will start to hate yourself for being exactly like the people you that imagine in your head that you despise.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 07:00:58 AM
I bet this doosh can close his own loop, and the brown ring around his neck is the evidence.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 26, 2015, 07:04:23 AM
You need a new car to bust the bad boys Mr. Zero:
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 07:14:31 AM
Didn't realize I was dealing with an adolescent troll.

Its encouraging to see that the cabal is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Regards...

 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 26, 2015, 07:31:54 AM
@tinman
Quote
Some are stuck fast in the dogma that is common physics,and have no room for
change. They see what has been shown to work around a few basic test,and decide
that there is no need to look any further. This can be seen with the magnetic
field-things work around there theories of the magnetic field,so that's that,no
need to look any further. But it is clear that they have missed something some
where along the line,as there is still no answer to basic questions we ask about
the magnetic force. One would think if there modle and understanding was
correct,then the answers would be right there in front of them.

There lies the problem I think and I have been through almost everything I could find from A to Z on both sides of the fence however I found no reasonable answers to the big questions. Nowhere on the internet or otherwise have I ever read a reasonable answer concerning what the magnetic field is because no rational physicist would tell us the answer. The only answer I found after years of research was -- virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes... as you can imagine I was disappointed.

I understand the concept sounds absurd and fundamentally it would seem impossible however I think it's important to understand the psychology behind it. All the concepts, equations and math revolve around closed systems because an open system cannot be rationalized nor quantified offering a near infinite number of variables. This is how science works and if it cannot be quantified then it is rejected which once again comes full circle back to basic psychology. The human mind must reject that which it cannot understand or rationalize or we begin to lose our grip on what we perceive as reality.

The alter ego is that the reverse may be true, if our mind will not allow an open system because it cannot be rationalized then logic stipulates the system must always remain closed and we are bound to that construct right or wrong. Thus it does not matter how factual or improbable the answer is it must be the correct one because all other possibilities must be rejected. At which point the logic concerning the proverbial closed system must spiral down the rabbit hole reinforcing itself within itself as it goes.

I'm not sure how many here have studied psychology however there is a saying which covers the bulk of it in my opinion -- the only ones who are truly insane are the ones who believe they are not in some way. That is those who are without doubt and reject all other possibilities or beliefs without question. Which explains many things doesn't it?, it is not a simple matter of convincing an insane person they are in fact insane because they will always reject that reality in every case. There is literally no convincing them of anything which in itself defines the actual mental disorder and not the external patterns of behavior... they will not listen.
In any case most all of the greatest minds in our history were pretty much loco so right or wrong were all in good company.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 26, 2015, 07:40:06 AM
@Mark
Quote
If fundamental falsities are not addressed, then it is just a trip down
someone's garden path.  Is that what you want?
Sometimes it's not the destination but the journey that matters most and making mistakes are a fundamental part of learning.
Quote
At various times people have lodged allegations against me for supposedly
doing things such as "twisting" their words.  When I have asked for examples of
the alleged bad behavior I none have been cited.
I know all of us have done this very thing at one point or another moreso me however you my friend are an exception to the rule. I cannot even imagine you doing such a thing...the nerve of some people, puny mortals, lol.

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 07:46:51 AM
So todays digital service technicians who dont know all about analog systems are probably crap at there job as well?.
Why would you conclude such a thing?  Wrenches are very basic things.  Here in the USA we have metric and imperial (SAE) sizes.  Anyone who has worked on cars even as a hobby has been exposed to both metric and SAE tools and hardware as very basic tools of the trade.  So someone who doesn't know the difference has been living in a hole somewhere.  A auto tech trained on digital will still know what a spark plug is and a coil even if they are not familiar with the old distributors with breaker points and a single common coil.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 07:54:24 AM
@tinman
There lies the problem I think and I have been through almost everything I could find from A to Z on both sides of the fence however I found no reasonable answers to the big questions. Nowhere on the internet or otherwise have I ever read a reasonable answer concerning what the magnetic field is because no rational physicist would tell us the answer. The only answer I found after years of research was -- virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes... as you can imagine I was disappointed.
And so being dissatisfied you elect to ignore what we understand of the behavior?  Just how does that make any sense?
Quote

I understand the concept sounds absurd and fundamentally it would seem impossible however I think it's important to understand the psychology behind it. All the concepts, equations and math revolve around closed systems because an open system cannot be rationalized nor quantified offering a near infinite number of variables. This is how science works and if it cannot be quantified then it is rejected which once again comes full circle back to basic psychology. The human mind must reject that which it cannot understand or rationalize or we begin to lose our grip on what we perceive as reality.
If an idea is not testable, then it remains just an idea.
Quote

The alter ego is that the reverse may be true, if our mind will not allow an open system because it cannot be rationalized then logic stipulates the system must always remain closed and we are bound to that construct right or wrong. Thus it does not matter how factual or improbable the answer is it must be the correct one because all other possibilities must be rejected. At which point the logic concerning the proverbial closed system must spiral down the rabbit hole reinforcing itself within itself as it goes.
You are conflating analysis techniques with belief systems.
Quote

I'm not sure how many here have studied psychology however there is a saying which covers the bulk of it in my opinion -- the only ones who are truly insane are the ones who believe they are not in some way. That is those who are without doubt and reject all other possibilities or beliefs without question. Which explains many things doesn't it?, it is not a simple matter of convincing an insane person they are in fact insane because they will always reject that reality in every case. There is literally no convincing them of anything which in itself defines the actual mental disorder and not the external patterns of behavior... they will not listen.
In any case most all of the greatest minds in our history were pretty much loco so right or wrong were all in good company.
If all members of set B are also members of set A, it does not follow that all members of set A are also members of set B.  Some people are very bright and crazy.  Some people are just crazy.
Quote

AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 07:57:55 AM
@MarkSometimes it's not the destination but the journey that matters most and making mistakes are a fundamental part of learning.
Refusing to acknowledge reality when it is pointed out doesn't sound much like learning to me.  Discouraging people pointing out reality seems counter to learning to me.
Quote
I know all of us have done this very thing at one point or another moreso me however you my friend are an exception to the rule. I cannot even imagine you doing such a thing...the nerve of some people, puny mortals, lol.
It is "Pathetic Earthlings!"
Quote
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 26, 2015, 08:23:40 AM
@Mark
Quote
And so being dissatisfied you elect to ignore what we understand of the
behavior?  Just how does that make any sense?
Not dissatisfied as they have taken it as far as they are able and answered many questions and in the process raising many questions. I was dissappointed that it devolved into wonderland as it often does. How does a particle popping in and out of existence violating the conservation of mass and energy make sense?... I do not know.
Quote
If an idea is not testable, then it remains just an idea
I would agree just as a virtual particle and wormholes are just idea's.
Quote
You are conflating analysis techniques with belief systems.
Oh I conflate many things however I do not believe this was one of them. Is analysis not a belief?, we observe and measure things and hope what we are seeing is real however some other person with better data may reject our analysis. Potatoe Potato Tomatoe Tomato, in many cases we reject what is different not because it is right or wrong but simply because it is different.
Quote
If all members of set B are also members of set A, it does not follow that all
members of set A are also members of set B.  Some people are very bright and crazy. Some people are just crazy.
All this math is confusing me, lol, I like history versus popular opinion because it depicts real people instead of legends. I mean it is mind boggling just how completely messed up the greatest minds of science were. They were womanizers, drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, sociopaths and the list of mental disorders just goes on and on and on. They were people who had the greatest contempt for their peers which is seldom if ever mentioned in the textbooks. Yes they were the greatest minds in science however they did not reach that status by towing the party line, they cut it with a freaking hatchet. As I said I like history.
From the greatest scientist in history--
“To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.”, Isaac Newton

 
AC
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 26, 2015, 09:30:02 AM
Why would you conclude such a thing?  Wrenches are very basic things.  Here in the USA we have metric and imperial (SAE) sizes.  Anyone who has worked on cars even as a hobby has been exposed to both metric and SAE tools and hardware as very basic tools of the trade.  So someone who doesn't know the difference has been living in a hole somewhere.  A auto tech trained on digital will still know what a spark plug is and a coil even if they are not familiar with the old distributors with breaker points and a single common coil.
There in lies the problem--one day your imperial system will be long forgotten. Here in australia you would be hard pressed to find any new car that has imperial fixtures(nuts/bolts etc) ,as we went digital quite some time ago.
Year after year,the old is forgotten,and the new arives. To assume that our children will be taught something that no longer exist is just incorrect. ask any chiled today what and how an analog phone worked,and they would ask-whats an analog phone. But ask the same question about digital,and wether there a digitech or not,they'll give you more than you bargained for.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: tinman on January 26, 2015, 09:34:35 AM
And so being dissatisfied you elect to ignore what we understand of the behavior?  Just how does that make any sense?
That is the problem,you dont understand the behavior.
You may observe the behavior,you may build machines based around that behavior-->but you do NOT understand it.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 11:02:51 AM
@MarkNot dissatisfied as they have taken it as far as they are able and answered many questions and in the process raising many questions. I was dissappointed that it devolved into wonderland as it often does. How does a particle popping in and out of existence violating the conservation of mass and energy make sense?... I do not know.
A rose by any other name.  You are still promoting an argument from ignorance.  You object to your understanding of QED and appear as a result intent on tossing everything else that has been described about electrodynamics.
Quote
I would agree just as a virtual particle and wormholes are just idea's.
The statement applies to any idea.
Quote
Oh I conflate many things however I do not believe this was one of them. Is analysis not a belief?, we observe and measure things and hope what we are seeing is real however some other person with better data may reject our analysis. Potatoe Potato Tomatoe Tomato, in many cases we reject what is different not because it is right or wrong but simply because it is different.All this math is confusing me, lol, I like history versus popular opinion because it depicts real people instead of legends.
I said analysis methods  you are conveniently rephrasing to imply "analysis conclusions".  The means of travel is distinct from the destination.
Quote
I mean it is mind boggling just how completely messed up the greatest minds of science were. They were womanizers, drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, sociopaths and the list of mental disorders just goes on and on and on. They were people who had the greatest contempt for their peers which is seldom if ever mentioned in the textbooks. Yes they were the greatest minds in science however they did not reach that status by towing the party line, they cut it with a freaking hatchet. As I said I like history.
If you enjoy history, and if you respect history, then kindly don't misquote others, including me.
Quote
From the greatest scientist in history--
“To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.”, Isaac Newton

 
AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 11:19:26 AM
There in lies the problem--one day your imperial system will be long forgotten.
So what?  MH's analogy is perfectly valid in the context that he offered it.  Do you really think that there ar e competent auto mechanics in Australia who do not know the difference between metric and imperial unit wrenches?  Do you think that there is a single competent mechanic who would look at a 1/4" box end wrench and wonder why something that looks close to a  6mm wrench has those markings on it?
Quote
Here in australia you would be hard pressed to find any new car that has imperial fixtures(nuts/bolts etc) ,as we went digital quite some time ago.
And your point with respect to MH's analogy is what?  How does the fact that most cars use digital engine controls alter MH's analogy that had nothing to do with digital engine controls?
Quote
Year after year,the old is forgotten,and the new arives. To assume that our children will be taught something that no longer exist is just incorrect. ask any chiled today what and how an analog phone worked,and they would ask-whats an analog phone. But ask the same question about digital,and wether there a digitech or not,they'll give you more than you bargained for.
Again, which has what to do with MH's analogy? 

Just to refresh your memory:  MH postulated that EMJ's failure to describe the behavior of an inductor when connected to a simple ideal voltage source betrays a very poor understanding of inductors by EMJ.  MH offered as an analogy that EMJ's failure would be akin to an auto mechanic being unable to distinguish between metric and imperial sized tools.  For whatever reason, EMJ did not answer MH's simple query.  He had the opportunity to demonstrate basic aptitude on the subject matter at hand but did not do so.  If it was because he could not, that does not bode well for anything unusual that he claims, because not understanding basic behavior he would be unlikely to know what is normal and what is unusual.  If it was because he was just screwing with MH, then who else is he screwing with?  One minute he said that he had a COP of a specific value:  1.7, and the next he refused to state how he obtained that value and declared that he didn't want anything to do with measurements.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 26, 2015, 03:46:38 PM
@Mark
Quote
Just to refresh your memory:  MH postulated that EMJ's failure to describe
the behavior of an inductor when connected to a simple ideal voltage source
betrays a very poor understanding of inductors by EMJ.  MH offered as an analogy
that EMJ's failure would be akin to an auto mechanic being unable to distinguish
between metric and imperial sized tools.  For whatever reason, EMJ did not
answer MH's simple query.  He had the opportunity to demonstrate basic aptitude
on the subject matter at hand but did not do so.  If it was because he could
not, that does not bode well for anything unusual that he claims, because not
understanding basic behavior he would be unlikely to know what is normal and
what is unusual.  If it was because he was just screwing with MH, then who else
is he screwing with?  One minute he said that he had a COP of a specific value: 
1.7, and the next he refused to state how he obtained that value and declared
that he didn't want anything to do with measurements.
Using that same logic we could also say one who proclaims to understand physics but doesn't understand what the Primary Fields are would be akin to a mechanic not understanding what a car is. Sure the mechanic could look to the manual to fix something with his two sizes of wrenches but for some very strange reason he would not understand what it is he was working on fundamentally. Why I could ask the mechanic, what are you working on and he might reply... an engine in this thing but I do not know what this thing is.
Very strange.
 
AC
 
 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 04:00:34 PM
@MarkUsing that same logic we could also say one who proclaims to understand physics but doesn't understand what the Primary Fields are would be akin to a mechanic not understanding what a car is.
LOL, no that reducto ad absurdum example is silly.  In order to repair a car the mechanic needs to be able to:  Remove and replace components without damaging the car or the new parts, follow a set of procedures to determine which parts to remove and replace.  The mechanic does not for example need to have a deep understanding of combustion dynamics.
Quote
Sure the mechanic could look to the manual to fix something with his two sizes of wrenches but for some very strange reason he would not understand what it is he was working on fundamentally.
How many mechanics can you say "understand what they are working on fundamentally"?
Quote
Why I could ask the mechanic, what are you working on and he might reply... an engine in this thing but I do not know what this thing is.
Very strange.
 
AC
I find your tortured analogy very strange.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 04:41:39 PM
LOL, no that reducto ad absurdum example is silly.  In order to repair a car the mechanic needs to be able to:  Remove and replace components without damaging the car or the new parts, follow a set of procedures to determine which parts to remove and replace.  The mechanic does not for example need to have a deep understanding of combustion dynamics.How many mechanics can you say "understand what they are working on fundamentally"?I find your tortured analogy very strange.

I picture this doosh playing a bit part in a 'B' western movie...either riding side saddle or facing backwards perched upon the saddle horn, wearing a tutu and a satisfied smile.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: wattsup on January 26, 2015, 05:10:06 PM
@all

This is just crazy. 4 more pages and nothing.


@MarkE

Yes gold is higher resistance, I should have said silver but get them mixed up on the fly. You should have left out your free comments though, they were uncalled for. But................

About the rest of what your commented, sorry but my only answer is go fuck yourself. If you want to play the ignoramus with me, then try someone else. I ain't interested.

Then you demand evidence. OK, lay a hard one in the morning, take it in your hand, squeeze it. That is all the evidence you will ever need because you just confirmed to me that's the basis for your being here. If you are looking to stir up shit, you may as well do it with the best knowledge of the subject possible.

I am here for OU, everything is based on OU, every bench test, works, talks, theories, alternatives and new angles, time and money and intent are all for OU. Every time I inhale and exhale, it is for OU. What's your excuse? Forget it. I don't want to know.

Word of advise, just leave me alone, do not respond to my posts and do not play with me. I have no humor to entertain your ilk so you have been warned. If you don't have an OUer badge, you should not be here anyways so for me you are actually an irrelevant non-event looking to hinder progress. I am actually talking to a ghost.

You flunked out. There a ways to advance an argument and there are ways to not to advance an argument. It is a choice we make willfully.

wattsup

PS: @All

Sorry for short post. Sorry for the language but sometimes, superlatives perform better then superconductivity.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 05:19:39 PM
So that's a big no to supporting any evidence.  If as you say you live and breathe OU the fact that you can't come up with evidence should tell you a lot.  No wonder you are so frustrated that you rant.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 26, 2015, 05:25:24 PM
@Mark



Quote
I find your tortured analogy very strange.


I do as well but I was very pressed for time at the end of a 20 hr shift so I thought I would just let it ride and see what happens, lol.


However I believe the underlying premise is sound, one cannot proclaim to understand something but not really understand it just as MH implied. The Primary Fields dictate the action of everything in the known universe and if they were not present nothing we know including ourselves would exist...period. The universe would be filled with a thin fog of particles and nothing more.


As such does it not sound logical that someone somewhere might want to understand these Primary Fields which dictate the action of everything in the known universe?. I simply find it mind boggling that there could be so little interest in something so profound effecting everything on every level.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 26, 2015, 06:50:13 PM
Mark E


some of the Boys are taking up a collection to send you to Charm school
all expenses paid , its a beautiful 6 week program [after the little boat ride]



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 06:53:05 PM
@Mark




I do as well but I was very pressed for time at the end of a 20 hr shift so I thought I would just let it ride and see what happens, lol.


However I believe the underlying premise is sound, one cannot proclaim to understand something but not really understand it just as MH implied.  The Primary Fields dictate the action of everything in the known universe and if they were not present nothing we know including ourselves would exist...period. The universe would be filled with a thin fog of particles and nothing more.


As such does it not sound logical that someone somewhere might want to understand these Primary Fields which dictate the action of everything in the known universe?. I simply find it mind boggling that there could be so little interest in something so profound effecting everything on every level.


AC
And another man of straw is slain.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 06:59:48 PM
Mark E


some of the Boys are taking up a collection to send you to Charm school
all expenses paid , its a beautiful 6 week program [after the little boat ride]

Does the boat ride involve cement shoes ?

And is there enough space to squeeze in his arse kisser, the butt pirate ?

His shoe size is a ladies 3...same as his willie, I'm guessing.

Regards...


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 26, 2015, 07:24:26 PM
Chet:

I am going to draw up an analogy for you.  Now this analogy is going to be a stretch and I will admit that.  Nonetheless, the message is still there and it's valid.

The recent Philippine ferry boat disaster is the setting.  The ferry was sinking, SINKING, and the staff were telling the passengers to stay in their cabins.  Now, if you are one of the staff, and your supervisor gives you orders to tell the passengers to stay put, and yet you know the ship is sinking, what do you do?  Do you stick with the party line and follow unethical ridiculous orders because that's what they told you to do, or do you try to help saving people's lives and tell them to get out because the ship is sinking?  Are you a drone or can you think for yourself?

Now look at the case of Chris.  You have a group of people asking for measurements and data.  The guy struggles to demonstrate even a rudimentary knowledge of electronics.  He is pushing yet another dubious explanation for his claim.  He balks when asked to present some data.

Then you have the interested people that want to replicate, some skilled, some unskilled.  They are not blind, they read what is transpiring.  We can add to that group the generic supporters of free energy.  Between the two groups not one single person will ask Chris to back up his claims and show his measurements and data.  Sometimes it takes character and courage to ask for something.  Sometimes it just takes common sense.  Sometimes people cower in fear because of the current flavour of political correctness that they perceive around them.

The replicators that don't ask the claimant any questions are akin to the staff working on the ferry that are telling passengers to go back to their cabins.  They are afraid and they don't know what to do and they are afraid or unwilling to make a decision for themselves.  The supporters of free energy that are not replicating circle the wagons around them.

It becomes insanity.  A dude making claims of over unity refusing to offer up any proof and a bunch of willing replicators afraid to ask for any proof.  It's just a dance of the absurd.

Moving on, sometimes people say things that are so whackadoo that some satire and derision in response is a valid thing to do.  Wattsup is one of the people that sometimes has theories that would be more suitable in a low-budget 1953 sci-fi movie.

Instead of charm school, it's arguable that we need "common sense school" and "don't be afraid of the peer pressure school."   We could even send people like you to "recognize and fight against the double-standard school."

If you are on a forum all about claiming that you can show a system that outputs more power than you put into it, and the participants on the forum don't even ask the claimant for evidence of the claim, then you have a serious serious problem.  The forum becomes an ineffective non-productive fiasco.  It becomes a reality distortion zone.

Hopefully some of the people reading this will get the message for when the next claimant comes to pitch his or her concept.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 07:32:58 PM
Chet:

I am going to draw up an analogy for you.  Now this analogy is going to be a stretch and I will admit that.  Nonetheless, the message is still there and it's valid.

The recent Philippine ferry boat disaster is the setting.  The ferry was sinking, SINKING, and the staff were telling the passengers to stay in their cabins.  Now, if you are one of the staff, and your supervisor gives you orders to tell the passengers to stay put, and yet you know the ship is sinking, what do you do?  Do you stick with the party line and follow unethical ridiculous orders because that's what they told you to do, or do you try to help saving people's lives and tell them to get out because the ship is sinking?  Are you a drone or can you think for yourself?

Now look at the case of Chris.  You have a group of people asking for measurements and data.  The guy struggles to demonstrate even a rudimentary knowledge of electronics.  He is pushing yet another dubious explanation for his claim.  He balks when asked to present some data.

Then you have the interested people that want to replicate, some skilled, some unskilled.  They are not blind, they read what is transpiring.  We can add to that group the generic supporters of free energy.  Between the two groups not one single person will ask Chris to back up his claims and show his measurements and data.  Sometimes it takes character and courage to ask for something.  Sometimes it just takes common sense.  Sometimes people cower in fear because of the current flavour of political correctness that they perceive around them.

The replicators that don't ask the claimant any questions are akin to the staff working on the ferry that are telling passengers to go back to their cabins.  They are afraid and they don't know what to do and they are afraid or unwilling to make a decision for themselves.  The supporters of free energy that are not replicating circle the wagons around them.

It becomes insanity.  A dude making claims of over unity refusing to offer up any proof and a bunch of willing replicators afraid to ask for any proof.  It's just a dance of the absurd.

Moving on, sometimes people say things that are so whackadoo that some satire and derision in response is a valid thing to do.  Wattsup is one of the people that sometimes has theories that would be more suitable in a low-budget 1953 sci-fi movie.

Instead of charm school, it's arguable that we need "common sense school" and "don't be afraid of the peer pressure school."   We could even send people like you to "recognize and fight against the double-standard school."

If you are on a forum all about claiming that you can show a system that outputs more power than you put into it, and the participants on the forum don't even ask the claimant for evidence of the claim, then you have a serious serious problem.  The forum becomes an ineffective non-productive fiasco.  It becomes a reality distortion zone.

Hopefully some of the people reading this will get the message for when the next claimant comes to pitch his or her concept.

MileHigh

Any chance of towing a rubber dinghy behind for this doofus ?

If there's not enough cement to go around, even though its getting bigger by the day, I sure the butt pirate's head will still fit up Mark's arse.

No point in wasting good rope to tie them together.

Regards...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 26, 2015, 07:42:49 PM
Any chance of towing a rubber dinghy behind for this doofus ?

If there's not enough cement to go around, even though its getting bigger by the day, I sure the butt pirate's head will still fit up Mark's arse.

No point in wasting good rope to tie them together.

Regards...

So that's it?  We are just going to get a string of ineffective, annoying, and vulgar comments?  Who is paying you to do this?

More seriously, I have noticed when you are challenged with a direct substantive point (eg: No MIB in Germany killing people even though oil revenues must be reduced by billions and billions of dollars) that you simply ignore it.  That turns you into fluff.

You are a one-man Orwellian nightmare.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 26, 2015, 07:57:15 PM
So that's it?  We are just going to get a string of ineffective, annoying, and vulgar comments?  Who is paying you to do this?

More seriously, I have noticed when you are challenged with a direct substantive point (eg: No MIB in Germany killing people even though oil revenues must be reduced by billions and billions of dollars) that you simply ignore it.  That turns you into fluff.

You are a one-man Orwellian nightmare.

Oh oh, somebody better call the waaambulance....again.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 26, 2015, 08:23:16 PM
Mark E




Quote
And another man of straw is slain.
-------------------------------------------

Nahh
Around here we call that shooting yourself in the foot.....










Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 26, 2015, 09:50:55 PM
Mark E




Quote
And another man of straw is slain.
-------------------------------------------

Nahh
Around here we call that shooting yourself in the foot.....
You created the straw man and you slayed that great demon.  Now if only you could counter MH's actual argument ...
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: wattsup on January 27, 2015, 12:33:59 AM
@MH

Just go back and really read my post. Put your EE brain on pause (if you can), open your brain section that is entitled "New perspective", then put the read there, muddle it over and come back with some real objections.

Real objections, based on logic, or based on the illogic of the logic.

Mark gave me one logical objection, gold, great, he is right, I was wrong cause I should have said silver. Hope the world does not fall apart for that.

Oh and what you are so certain of today, in many instances began as you say as "whakadoo" science yesterday. So don't be so pompous about the origins of intelligence. When I embarked on this adventure of OU, I did not expect being where I am today, I did not expect to find so many discrepancies at every damn turn, where we always wind up with some level of "that's the way it is, accept it" and Marks ultimate "where's the evidence".

You know that evidence can be used for you or against you. So I will be using the already available evidence against itself. hahahaha I don't have to invent invisible fields, counterspaces and dielectrics to get my point across. The evidence is already out there in small lines of science. Unnoticed observations, they are all over the place. Once you get into this long enough you start to develop a second sense.

Your problem has always been the same thing. You are trying to grasp concepts that you have never spent a second on the bench working towards. You may have spent years and years building widgets for company A, B and C. But you have never spent one minute working on OU, so how do you expect to fully understand what I am saying in my posts. Of course they are whakadoo to you. But luckily I never post for you or @MarkEs. I only post for OUers and in the OU world, the great silent majority that never posts here, we understand things differently. We learn to read between the lines, our lines, others lines as well as Standard EE lines.

Case in point: @tinman posts something and all of a sudden, a term used in not right and pages go by for what? I understood him perfectly when you consider the context. But you guys just took him to the cleaners on that, so why? You will not understand certain things but you are quick to repost your opinions on every other post and in most thread on this forum. Why?

Examples of small evidence not too far away: Taken here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Quote
When subjected to external forces, like electrical fields, the shape of an atom may deviate from spherical symmetry. The deformation depends on the field magnitude and the orbital type of outer shell electrons, as shown by group-theoretical considerations. Aspherical deviations might be elicited for instance in crystals, where large crystal-electrical fields may occur at low-symmetry lattice sites. Significant ellipsoidal deformations have recently been shown to occur for sulfur ions [66] and chalcogen ions [67] in pyrite-type compounds.
Unquote

Quote
Magnetic moment
Main articles: Electron magnetic dipole moment and Nuclear magnetic moment

Elementary particles possess an intrinsic quantum mechanical property known as spin. This is analogous to the angular momentum of an object that is spinning around its center of mass, although strictly speaking these particles are believed to be point-like and cannot be said to be rotating. Spin is measured in units of the reduced Planck constant (ħ), with electrons, protons and neutrons all having spin ½ ħ, or "spin-½". In an atom, electrons in motion around the nucleus possess orbital angular momentum in addition to their spin, while the nucleus itself possesses angular momentum due to its nuclear spin.[74]

The magnetic field produced by an atom—its magnetic moment—is determined by these various forms of angular momentum, just as a rotating charged object classically produces a magnetic field. However, the most dominant contribution comes from electron spin. Due to the nature of electrons to obey the Pauli exclusion principle, in which no two electrons may be found in the same quantum state, bound electrons pair up with each other, with one member of each pair in a spin up state and the other in the opposite, spin down state. Thus these spins cancel each other out, reducing the total magnetic dipole moment to zero in some atoms with even number of electrons.[75]

In ferromagnetic elements such as iron, cobalt and nickel, an odd number of electrons leads to an unpaired electron and a net overall magnetic moment. The orbitals of neighboring atoms overlap and a lower energy state is achieved when the spins of unpaired electrons are aligned with each other, a spontaneous process known as an exchange interaction. When the magnetic moments of ferromagnetic atoms are lined up, the material can produce a measurable macroscopic field. Paramagnetic materials have atoms with magnetic moments that line up in random directions when no magnetic field is present, but the magnetic moments of the individual atoms line up in the presence of a field.[75][76]

The nucleus of an atom will have no spin when it has even numbers of both neutrons and protons, but for other cases of odd numbers, the nucleus may have a spin. Normally nuclei with spin are aligned in random directions because of thermal equilibrium. However, for certain elements (such as xenon-129) it is possible to polarize a significant proportion of the nuclear spin states so that they are aligned in the same direction—a condition called hyperpolarization. This has important applications in magnetic resonance imaging.[77][78]
Unquote

So my friend, if you can muddle through this you will realize that the spin is already there. They just did not want to expand on this in terms of our everyday live effects. Because it's easier to think for 2000 some years that a field having zero properties is responsible for our effects via electron movement through a wire, instead of trying to explain that if one atom can spin (what I call the 6Ss, Stay, Show, Sway, Swing, Spin and Shoot) which are all attributes of the atom, they all can spin. There is so much more like this man. The only thing I did was add Conveyance which they decided to neglect since they already had a field and electron to do the energy conveyance in their particular model. Big mistake just cost us 200 years of neglecting the atomic attributes.

Copper having 29 protons and 35 neutrons is our prime candidate for spin. Where there is spin, there is cancellation potential and where you want OU, you need to lower that cancellation potential and that can only be done by topology right now because I cannot make my own copper wire, nor my own magnets.

Like I said to advance in OU research, you need to touch on many disciplines.

But there is much much more. hehehe

wattsup
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: shylo on January 27, 2015, 12:45:40 AM
It's amazing  how many threads get derailed.
Your all our own worst enemy.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2015, 01:10:11 AM
@MH

Just go back and really read my post. Put your EE brain on pause (if you can), open your brain section that is entitled "New perspective", then put the read there, muddle it over and come back with some real objections.

Real objections, based on logic, or based on the illogic of the logic.

Mark gave me one logical objection, gold, great, he is right, I was wrong cause I should have said silver. Hope the world does not fall apart for that.
That entire post of yours was riddled with false and fantastical assertions.  Silver is only about 6% more conductive than copper. So even if you substitute silver for gold in your tome, your assertion that the conductivity of copper versus gold or silver making a big difference in the magnetic characteristics is nonsense.  Untarnished silver has a slightly thinner skin depth than unoxidized copper at any given frequency.  All the clap trap about defective atoms you offered up is just so much nonsense.
Quote

Oh and what you are so certain of today, in many instances began as you say as "whakadoo" science yesterday. So don't be so pompous about the origins of intelligence. When I embarked on this adventure of OU, I did not expect being where I am today, I did not expect to find so many discrepancies at every damn turn, where we always wind up with some level of "that's the way it is, accept it" and Marks ultimate "where's the evidence".
Really?  Then kindly cite examples of where you have found a significant advance over electrodynamic theory from the time that you started to "where you are today".
Quote

You know that evidence can be used for you or against you. So I will be using the already available evidence against itself. hahahaha I don't have to invent invisible fields, counterspaces and dielectrics to get my point across. The evidence is already out there in small lines of science. Unnoticed observations, they are all over the place. Once you get into this long enough you start to develop a second sense.
That's all fine and well to say, but until you actually pull something fro behind that curtain it is all just so many words.
Quote

Your problem has always been the same thing. You are trying to grasp concepts that you have never spent a second on the bench working towards. You may have spent years and years building widgets for company A, B and C. But you have never spent one minute working on OU, so how do you expect to fully understand what I am saying in my posts. Of course they are whakadoo to you. But luckily I never post for you or @MarkEs. I only post for OUers and in the OU world, the great silent majority that never posts here, we understand things differently. We learn to read between the lines, our lines, others lines as well as Standard EE lines.
Again that is all fine and well but without reliable evidence it is little more than story telling in the church of the invisible pink unicorn.
Quote

Case in point: @tinman posts something and all of a sudden, a term used in not right and pages go by for what? I understood him perfectly when you consider the context. But you guys just took him to the cleaners on that, so why?
When tinman says something that is ambiguous or wrong, I for one ask him what he really means.  I want to understand his actual intent and not pretend to read his mind, or otherwise assume something that he did not mean.
Quote
You will not understand certain things but you are quick to repost your opinions on every other post and in most thread on this forum. Why?

Examples of small evidence not too far away: Taken here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Quote
When subjected to external forces, like electrical fields, the shape of an atom may deviate from spherical symmetry. The deformation depends on the field magnitude and the orbital type of outer shell electrons, as shown by group-theoretical considerations. Aspherical deviations might be elicited for instance in crystals, where large crystal-electrical fields may occur at low-symmetry lattice sites. Significant ellipsoidal deformations have recently been shown to occur for sulfur ions [66] and chalcogen ions [67] in pyrite-type compounds.
Unquote

Quote
Magnetic moment
Main articles: Electron magnetic dipole moment and Nuclear magnetic moment

Elementary particles possess an intrinsic quantum mechanical property known as spin. This is analogous to the angular momentum of an object that is spinning around its center of mass, although strictly speaking these particles are believed to be point-like and cannot be said to be rotating. Spin is measured in units of the reduced Planck constant (ħ), with electrons, protons and neutrons all having spin ½ ħ, or "spin-½". In an atom, electrons in motion around the nucleus possess orbital angular momentum in addition to their spin, while the nucleus itself possesses angular momentum due to its nuclear spin.[74]

The magnetic field produced by an atom—its magnetic moment—is determined by these various forms of angular momentum, just as a rotating charged object classically produces a magnetic field. However, the most dominant contribution comes from electron spin. Due to the nature of electrons to obey the Pauli exclusion principle, in which no two electrons may be found in the same quantum state, bound electrons pair up with each other, with one member of each pair in a spin up state and the other in the opposite, spin down state. Thus these spins cancel each other out, reducing the total magnetic dipole moment to zero in some atoms with even number of electrons.[75]

In ferromagnetic elements such as iron, cobalt and nickel, an odd number of electrons leads to an unpaired electron and a net overall magnetic moment. The orbitals of neighboring atoms overlap and a lower energy state is achieved when the spins of unpaired electrons are aligned with each other, a spontaneous process known as an exchange interaction. When the magnetic moments of ferromagnetic atoms are lined up, the material can produce a measurable macroscopic field. Paramagnetic materials have atoms with magnetic moments that line up in random directions when no magnetic field is present, but the magnetic moments of the individual atoms line up in the presence of a field.[75][76]

The nucleus of an atom will have no spin when it has even numbers of both neutrons and protons, but for other cases of odd numbers, the nucleus may have a spin. Normally nuclei with spin are aligned in random directions because of thermal equilibrium. However, for certain elements (such as xenon-129) it is possible to polarize a significant proportion of the nuclear spin states so that they are aligned in the same direction—a condition called hyperpolarization. This has important applications in magnetic resonance imaging.[77][78]
Unquote

So my friend, if you can muddle through this you will realize that the spin is already there.
When did MH say that spin "isn't there"?
Quote
They just did not want to expand on this in terms of our everyday live effects. Because it's easier to think for 2000 some years that a field having zero properties is responsible for our effects via electron movement through a wire, instead of trying to explain that if one atom can spin (what I call the 6Ss, Stay, Show, Sway, Swing, Spin and Shoot) which are all attributes of the atom, they all can spin. There is so much more like this man. The only thing I did was add Conveyance which they decided to neglect since they already had a field and electron to do the energy conveyance in their particular model. Big mistake just cost us 200 years of neglecting the atomic attributes.
In all that gobbledygook are you trying to claim that you have developed a superior atomic model, and/or a superior electrodynamic model?
Quote

Copper having 29 protons and 35 neutrons is our prime candidate for spin.
Yet copper has a permeability so close to 1.0 that for almost all purposes it is treated as 1.0.
Quote
Where there is spin, there is cancellation potential and where you want OU, you need to lower that cancellation potential and that can only be done by topology right now because I cannot make my own copper wire, nor my own magnets.

Like I said to advance in OU research, you need to touch on many disciplines.

But there is much much more. hehehe

wattsup
Hitting the happy gas does not lead out discovery.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: wattsup on January 27, 2015, 01:18:13 AM
It's amazing how many threads get derailed.
Your all our own worst enemy.

@shylo

The title says it all and that's what I have tried talking about. If you notice, I try to follow a certain method where if a thread is moving well, I will not interject until a line of reasoning has been explored and concluded or summarized as still open for discussion but dead for now. Then I will post. I try to be as cordial as possible, I try to work my words so each means exactly what I am trying to convey. I work and rework posts for days sometimes, not all day long but some can take several hours, so usually, what I write is exactly what I want to say and I rarely post two liners in the dead heat of conversation. So I really don't know what I did to merit your comments.

wattsup

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 27, 2015, 02:37:28 AM
...

This troll can twist more words than a Chubby Checker song.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 27, 2015, 02:40:59 AM
Wattsup:

Sorry but you lost it (and me) when you went into the stuff about the good atoms vs. the defective atoms.  That's whackadoo.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 27, 2015, 02:44:29 AM
Wattsup:

Sorry but you lost it (and me) when you went into the stuff about the good atoms vs. the defective atoms.  That's whackadoo.

MileHigh

In troll speak, whakadoo means worth consideration.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MileHigh on January 27, 2015, 02:48:15 AM
Well anyone can filter out your useless postings and treat them like the ad inserts.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 27, 2015, 03:00:33 AM
Wattsup
to think we may be able to alter and harvest from the humble Atom


http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/


and yes @ Wattsup most of us do completely understand where TinMan is coming from.
as well as where He's going.


I suppose once Parkomov's LENR work gets more eyes and hands on it there will be a lot of change in the way we perceive the humble Atom.


respectfully
Chet



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2015, 03:04:30 AM
Wattsup
to think we may be able to alter and harvest from the humble Atom


http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/


and yes @ Wattsup most of us do completely understand where TinMan is coming from.
as well as where He's going.


I suppose once Parkomov's LENR work gets more eyes and hands on it there will be a lot of change in the way we perceive the humble Atom.


respectfully
Chet
Would you care to place a friendly wager on whether or not Parkomov's device is ever validated as producing excess energy over input electrical energy?
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 27, 2015, 03:04:55 AM
Well anyone can filter out your useless postings and treat them like the ad inserts.

Oh, if only more new members would take that advice and use it on him and his troll bum buddies...the forum wouldn't be the troll train wreck it has spiraled into.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: Cap-Z-ro on January 27, 2015, 03:07:45 AM
Would you care to place a friendly wager on whether or not Parkomov's device is ever validated as producing excess energy over input electrical energy?

Hah, easy for him...he's betting with your own tax money.

Regards...

Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 27, 2015, 04:23:01 AM
Mark E
whats your limit...[being serious]


here is a recent opinion






Quote
Michael McKubre Reviews the Parkhomov Experiment
Posted on January 15, 2015 by Frank Acland • 47 Comments

Thanks to Sanjeev for posting this link in the replication thread.

Michael McKubre, Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International in Palo Alto, Calfornia, is a well known and long-time researcher in the LENR field, and has published an article in Infinite Energy magazine reviewing the recently published Alexander Parkhomov experiment using a Hot Cat-like device.

As usual, McKubre provides a thorough analysis of the experiment with great attention to the details of the experimental setup and protocols used. He expresses some concerns with Parkhomov’s report — notably the lack of calibration data, but thinks this is an important experiment that deserves to be repeated by Parkhomov and other replicators.

He also expresses confidence in Dr. Parkhomov’s professional credentials, noting that the University is very reputable, and that he (McKubre) has worked with some of Parkhomov’s colleagues over the years.

Here is his conclusion:

   
Quote
As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams.
Parkhomov has really captured the attention of the LENR community. His results, if confirmed, are spectacular, and the experiment is very simple, which is very attractive to people who want to try to replicate. I am sure this experiment will be a driving force among LENR enthusiasts during the next weeks and months, and I expect that we will see more replication efforts of Parkhomov going forward.
[/size][/color][/font][/size]
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 27, 2015, 04:56:25 AM
@Mark
Quote
And another man of straw is slain.


LOL, I wasn't aware that this was some kind of competition and if so I was never one for playing childish games. So if you feel compelled to always one up me and you get off on this kind of thing them I'm overjoyed you found some satisfaction in my post as well as your response.


@MH
Quote
Sorry but you lost it (and me) when you went into the stuff about the good atoms vs. the defective atoms.  T[/size]hat's whackadoo.


From my perspective I believe wattsup was making reference to free electron scattering in conductors. That is the motive force on an electron by an external magnetic field may cause the electron to step from proton shell to proton shell however it is seldom a direct path (straight line). As such we could say there are good and bad atoms and the good ones would allow the free electron to follow the shortest path from point A to B with the least resistance.


I understand the terminology is a little off beat but the message appears sound in my opinion. To go further, if we had a specific condition in a conductor not unlike Maxwell's demon which could straighten the path of an electron preventing electron scattering then we may have a condition not unlike super-conduction. I believe this was what wattsup was referring to a few pages ago which relates to the post you responded to.


AC



Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: allcanadian on January 27, 2015, 05:22:27 AM
@wattsup
Quote
Case in point: @tinman posts something and all of a sudden, a term used in not right and pages go by for what? I understood him perfectly when you consider the context. But you guys just took him to the cleaners on that, so why? You will not understand certain things but you are quick to repost your opinions on every other post and in most thread on this forum. Why?


Here in Canada it is referred to as a pissing contest where one boy always feels compelled to pee a little further than the next to prove himself worthy. Oh it's fun at first but obviously after a while it's just lame and I had a few friends like this growing up. The funny thing is these people always felt superior but behind there back everyone thought there behavior was quite ridiculous and all of us would laugh about it. The fundamental problem was they never quite understood when to quit and they always went too far.
Boys will be boys, lol.


I don't really find it annoying at all more so comical, I mean once you understand what they are doing and why how can you not find it humorous?.


AC
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2015, 07:04:08 AM
Mark E
whats your limit...[being serious]


here is a recent opinion






Quote
Michael McKubre Reviews the Parkhomov Experiment
Posted on January 15, 2015 by Frank Acland • 47 Comments

Thanks to Sanjeev for posting this link in the replication thread.

Michael McKubre, Director of the Energy Research Center of the Materials Research Laboratory at SRI International in Palo Alto, Calfornia, is a well known and long-time researcher in the LENR field, and has published an article in Infinite Energy magazine reviewing the recently published Alexander Parkhomov experiment using a Hot Cat-like device.

As usual, McKubre provides a thorough analysis of the experiment with great attention to the details of the experimental setup and protocols used. He expresses some concerns with Parkhomov’s report — notably the lack of calibration data, but thinks this is an important experiment that deserves to be repeated by Parkhomov and other replicators.

He also expresses confidence in Dr. Parkhomov’s professional credentials, noting that the University is very reputable, and that he (McKubre) has worked with some of Parkhomov’s colleagues over the years.

Here is his conclusion:

   
Quote
As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight. Nevertheless the experiment is clearly specified, easily performed, elegant and sufficiently accurate (with relevant calibration). I would recommend that the experiment be attempted by anyone curious and with the facilities to do so safely, exactly as described. Anything else or more runs the risk of teaching us nothing. I await further word from Parkhomov and reports from further replication teams.
Parkhomov has really captured the attention of the LENR community. His results, if confirmed, are spectacular, and the experiment is very simple, which is very attractive to people who want to try to replicate. I am sure this experiment will be a driving force among LENR enthusiasts during the next weeks and months, and I expect that we will see more replication efforts of Parkhomov going forward.
[/size][/color][/font][/size]
McKubre has over the years said nice things about a whole bunch of claims that never panned out.  I don't think he even criticized Steorn after they wasted two and a half years of his time as one of their 22 hand picked jurors.  If you are unfamiliar with the Steorn fiasco, it's a case study in how long con artists can keep a farce going if they are just brazen enough.  They declared they had working perpetual motion machines and that their problem was they couldn't get any scientists to give them an honest look and report.  McKubre was one of 22 jurors whom Steorn picked to evaluate their claims.  In the end, it turns out that Steorn never gave the jurors a machine or access to a machine to evaluate.  IOW, Steorn blocked the jurors from doing the very thing that Steorn declared they needed the jurors to do.  It was shameless and scandalous.  As far as I know, McKubre has never spoken out concerning Steorn.

In the quote you've cited McKubre ticked off a laundry list of why the experiment data is completely worthless. 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 27, 2015, 09:28:46 AM

Mark E quote


"COMPLETELY WORTHLESS"
end quote

HHMMmmmm  yeah he really sounds  like he's trying to convey that  point


Quote  Michael McKubre

Parkhomov has really captured the attention of the LENR community. His results, if confirmed, are spectacular, and the experiment is very simple, which is very attractive to people who want to try to replicate. I am sure this experiment will be a driving force among LENR enthusiasts during the next weeks and months, and I expect that we will see more replication efforts of Parkhomov going forward.

end quote

[/size]
your comparing LENR research with steorn is a "spot on" analogy


so pull your wallet out


what's your limit ?


Thx
Chet
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2015, 10:18:15 AM
Quote
Quote
As a comment in conclusion, there are gaps and unexplained effects in the data set, notably in the missing calibration data, and the foreground data record is slight.
No calibration means that no one knows what was actually measured.  IE, the results are worthless.

If you win, I donate $1000. to the charity of your choice.  If I win, you donate $1000. to the charity of my choice.

You win if before Jan 1st, 2016 any accredited university publish results of experiments where they report that they have reproduced Parkomov's set-up and agree that they observe excess output energy versus input above their error bars and attribute that energy to any:  LENR / LANR / CF.  If no such report is forthcoming by Jan 1st, 2016, then I win.  Loser will publish to the winner proof of payment.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: TinselKoala on January 27, 2015, 12:16:15 PM
That's a pretty high standard of evidence.

I'd settle for just one cheezburger, cooked by the excess energy output of the device.

With mayo, of course.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 27, 2015, 03:27:39 PM

Mark E

Exactly what "no calibration" means in this case ....
I Stopped assuming a Loooong time ago,I do know that fellows like yourself
[true supporters of this work] ,would consider a calibration report Void if 3 secs
past calibration Date .and not bother submitting it ..[yes a screw up ]


Or are they talking about a calibrated control ?,  gee that would be a huge problem too  ::)


could be the biggest Moot point in the report..



I stopped using my crystal ball and wigi board to acquire information  a long time ago ,since about the time the telephone came into being  :o


I appreciate them sharing this information with us free of charge
unlike yourself Mark E,when it gets this simple ...


I have nothing but gratitude


I suppose your seventh Grade science class would be able to _start_experiments here if they would have a decent teacher.. and maybe a 100 dollar budget..
and of course the experiments could get fancier even to the point Of symphonies and
other mixtures /recipes ..
ala solar hydrogen technologies ,maybe Konstantin will take a bit of your action
   if you put your "Bigboy " pants on  ,


Jack might even step up to the table ?


respectfully
Chet


 
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: wattsup on January 27, 2015, 04:04:27 PM
@MarkE

WTF do you know about atoms? Who the hell made you an authority on such matters and before you posted your comment, did you take any time to investigate the question between the time you read my post and posted your crap. Obviously not but that is not surprising since you have a quota to meet.

6% is nothing, tell that to anyone working on OU devices you fool.

So I guess the title of this thread is "Let's all kiss @MarkE' ass of approval". How pompous a jackass you can be has gone beyond any limitation. You actually think you know something about OU.

I will not waste any more time on your low level comments as we already know what they will be and already know you will never teach anyone anything on this forum. You are just an old man, looking for a venue to vent your rapid fire posts.

Who the fuck are you anyway. Let's see.....

Date registered: January 09, 2014, 04:25:06 AM (Just over one year)
15 posts just on Jan 26th, 2015 (yesterday)
4804 posts since registered. (Wow... man... you definitely have a problem.)

You either have to be totally out of your mind to post so much or you are just sick, being on an OU forum, not being OU vetted, not having anything positive to say towards OU, never showing OU works on the bench, you are just here to blow away your day after day after day life........... of WHAT? Picking your ass, typing away then licking your keyboard probably sums up your day fairly well. hahahahahahaha

What a loser. You had an opportunity to enter into some great conversation but you will only skim the surface as usual, be totally judgmental as usual, and just steer threads away from any deep discourse, as usual. You are simply pointless, but I guess you knew that already. 4804 posts saying nothing. Just great.

@all

I wanted to come back here to see if things really changed, but they have not. This forum is rigged. So keep pulsing those coils and keep wondering why you have no OU. Meanwhile others like myself will look deeper and deeper to find the answers. Posting ideas, like this thread title says. You guys are not interested in new ideas so just keep doing your thing and good luck. I'm off this thread and will just go to my locked thread and repost everything there fro now on, where jerk off rapid fire posts cannot enter. Just sick.

wattsup
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2015, 04:10:22 PM
Mark E

Exactly what "no calibration" means in this case ....
It means that the investigator failed to establish what his instruments could and could not measure accurately.  Absent that information the measurements are basically meaningless.
Quote
I Stopped assuming a Loooong time ago,I do know that fellows like yourself
[true supporters of this work] ,would consider a calibration report Void if 3 secs
past calibration Date .and not bother submitting it ..[yes a screw up ]
There you go making assertions without foundation. ... Again.
Quote


Or are they talking about a calibrated control ?,  gee that would be a huge problem too  ::)
See above.
Quote


could be the biggest Moot point in the report..
If you think so then you don't understand how scientific experiments work.
Quote



I stopped using my crystal ball and wigi board to acquire information  a long time ago ,since about the time the telephone came into being  :o


I appreciate them sharing this information with us free of charge
unlike yourself Mark E,when it gets this simple ...
You can look at it this way:  If it is really all so simple and obvious as you purport then any day now there should be multiple successful replications and LENR will finally be here.  OTOH, a dearth of replications should suggest that there are "issues".
Quote


I have nothing but gratitude


I suppose your seventh Grade science class would be able to _start_experiments here if they would have a decent teacher.. and maybe a 100 dollar budget..
and of course the experiments could get fancier even to the point Of symphonies and
other mixtures /recipes ..
ala solar hydrogen technologies ,maybe Konstantin will take a bit of your action
   if you put your "Bigboy " pants on  ,


Jack might even step up to the table ?


respectfully
Chet
If you think it is trivial, then maybe you should put those "big boy" pants on yourself and show us all how it is done.  Or you can keep hurling childish insults.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: MarkE on January 27, 2015, 04:14:21 PM
@MarkE

WTF do you know about atoms? Who the hell made you an authority on such matters and before you posted your comment, did you take any time to investigate the question between the time you read my post and posted your crap. Obviously not but that is not surprising since you have a quota to meet.
LOL, where is your evidence for "defective atoms"?
Quote

6% is nothing, tell that to anyone working on OU devices you fool.

So I guess the title of this thread is "Let's all kiss @MarkE' ass of approval". How pompous a jackass you can be has gone beyond any limitation. You actually think you know something about OU.
Do you have something to offer other than ad hominem attack?
Quote

I will not waste any more time on your low level comments as we already know what they will be and already know you will never teach anyone anything on this forum. You are just an old man, looking for a venue to vent your rapid fire posts.

Who the fuck are you anyway. Let's see.....

Date registered: January 09, 2014, 04:25:06 AM (Just over one year)
15 posts just on Jan 26th, 2015 (yesterday)
4804 posts since registered. (Wow... man... you definitely have a problem.)

You either have to be totally out of your mind to post so much or you are just sick, being on an OU forum, not being OU vetted, not having anything positive to say towards OU, never showing OU works on the bench, you are just here to blow away your day after day after day life........... of WHAT? Picking your ass, typing away then licking your keyboard probably sums up your day fairly well. hahahahahahaha

What a loser. You had an opportunity to enter into some great conversation but you will only skim the surface as usual, be totally judgmental as usual, and just steer threads away from any deep discourse, as usual. You are simply pointless, but I guess you knew that already. 4804 posts saying nothing. Just great.
More ad hom attacks.  How boring.
Quote

@all

I wanted to come back here to see if things really changed, but they have not. This forum is rigged. So keep pulsing those coils and keep wondering why you have no OU. Meanwhile others like myself will look deeper and deeper to find the answers. Posting ideas, like this thread title says. You guys are not interested in new ideas so just keep doing your thing and good luck. I'm off this thread and will just go to my locked thread and repost everything there fro now on, where jerk off rapid fire posts cannot enter. Just sick.

wattsup
Have fun.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: ramset on January 27, 2015, 04:17:43 PM
Mark E
you have an agenda which is rock solid ,however my position
from a point of such ignorance should embolden your betting portfolio.

Lets not be boring.....


come on put some meat on the table.....


this was your idea not mine ?


insert


crickets chirping.....

HHMM is it 12 hours and no response??
I guess you got your whole crew ,,,,,er colleagues working on this one??


very very untypical of your Mark E .......


Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: sparks on January 27, 2015, 07:14:20 PM
   Most conductors have defective atoms.      Atoms don't like unpaired electrons in the valence shell and would normally share this electron in a covalent bond or boot it to form an ionic bond.   In the case of metals they really aren't atomic but more of a plasma.  The electrons are arranged outside the influence of the nucleus and form a plasma where the bulk of the electrons are in electrical relativity to the bulk of the nuclei.  So the electron cloud or liquid is easily influenced by electric fields.  Electric fields accelerate electrons.  The distribution of the nuclei in relation to the electron liquid and the amount of heat influence the resistance of the conductor as well as the number of electrons in the liquid.  Electron a moving on a switch contact towards the end of a conductor will have an electric field moving along with it.   When the electron laden contact gets close enough to the other contact it will move electrons in the wire connected to the other contact.   They don't even have to touch.   This is how you couple two ac circuits.  You use the electric field to push electrons out of one plate.  You don't need a closed circuit.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: pinestone on March 12, 2015, 02:33:22 PM


    I'm fascinated by the circular patterns which occur with the Ferrocell  pictures.
Just wondered if there was a simple explanation.
                      John.

I just found your post and will explain:

When light bombards certain metals, electrons are ejected. This is called the "photoelectric effect".
Iron isn't one of the best materials to create the effect, but Fe falls within this group.
The application of a strong magnetic field causes the electrons to follow the lowest potential of the field.
This is the 'ring' you refer to, and the same phenomenon can be seen using other methods such as plasmas or gasses.

That's the simple explanation.
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: shylo on June 11, 2019, 01:52:01 PM
Tinman,
The video you just posted on OUR is excellent.
The field has to be bi-directional, half the field is going in the opposite direction.
Turn the magnet 90 deg. so it runs in line with the wire.
Now rotate the magnet ,with flow in the wire , the wire should bounce up and down.
There has to be a point where the fields change.
What determines that I do not understand.
artv
Title: Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
Post by: shylo on June 13, 2019, 10:30:44 AM
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=32013;image)
This explanation doesn't make sense.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=32015;image)
Neither does this one.
Posted by F6 the first and Smudge the second.
artv
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=32013;image
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2470.0;attach=32015;image