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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Faraday's Paradox experiment  (Read 232380 times)

wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #135 on: September 02, 2010, 02:54:36 PM »
@ Rose

Ed Leedskalnin talked about this. he caled it "the space the tiny magnets were in" when the metal was hot, and under a magnetic field.

the field is in motion all the time, but its not the same kind of motion that physical matter endures, if that makes any sense.
When you turn the magnet, the field does actually turn "with it".
(personally i think i have scientifically proven that the field propegates faster than you turn it, but there are those that would argue against that to the death of them..)

the field presented in the HPG is what we consider "uniform", that is, on the macro-scale out here where we sit, the field presents an ~ equal force around any given concentric circle, around the common axis. the effect of this is that the effective field represents a "stationary" event in the space it occupies.

so, when one says "the feild does not move", in a newtonian sense, they are correct. Which is what matters to us, when we actually USE it.

If we zoom in, we can see that the outer extremities of the field are not uniform. despite our best efforts to create a perfectly symetrical disk, (nanostructures omitted), we are not perfect.

It presents itself in a "jagged-line" motion around the extremities.
and "streaks" around the face

this is important to us when we actually STUDY it.

It's not the moving field that matters, its the changes in the moving field. were it a perfectly symmetrical magnet, we could not detect its movement at all.

the field passes through everything,
 its not the movement of the field that affects us,
 its the movement of changes in the field.

If those changes are too subtle for us to observe on a grand scale, then for our purpose, the thought that it doesnt move can have the same result as an approach with the knowledge that it does.

If you talk to an Engineer he tells you that electrons flow. Talk to a technician, he tells you no they dont, Current flows.
and the two of them can sit at a coffee table and argue the point for days..  meanwhile, you push the button and your computer still turns on.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Think about this, the Earth. if you look at the geological data, study the movement of the core, and the coesponding shifts in the earths magnetic field. you see that it moves right through us and we dont even notice it. we dont see wrenches flying across the garage, and such...  these changes are very small compared to us.

but take for instance a Goose. whos brain posses a tiny cluster of crystals that oscillate in a vectoral direction associated with the earths field. These changes throw the goose patterns off by hundreds of miles.

its all relative really..
When it comes to this device, and the manner in which it is used.
"the field is stationary".
a more accurate terminoligy, would be to say that
"the distortion in space the magnetic field creates, is stationary."

in either case, we dont see it moving in the HPG
 so its esoteric or something.....

 
Figure 12: Photograph of 50.8mm ring magnet with the north pole facing the
camera with different color LEDs around the perimeter of the lens.
 
http://sirzerp.blip.tv/#1468250
http://www.nanomagnetics.us/

.... The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #136 on: September 02, 2010, 05:55:10 PM »

Figure 12: Photograph of 50.8mm ring magnet with the north pole facing the
camera with different color LEDs around the perimeter of the lens.
 
http://sirzerp.blip.tv/#1468250
http://www.nanomagnetics.us/

.... The Double Helix Theory of the Magnetic Field

Here's a quote from Sirzerp in regards to his publication on Photographing Magnetic Lines of Constant Scaler Potential, http://www.scribd.com/doc/28943933/Photographing-Magnetic-Lines-of-Constant-Scalar-Potential , "I should stress the lines that we have photographed are not B- field flux lines, but instead a form of magnetic ‘voltage’ equipotential lines."

Using a lens  with a micron thin layer of sandwiched ferro fluid to map external magnetic fields via optic affects of the field on the magnetic fluid. Red, yellow and green radial LED's are spaced evenly; facing inward into the edge of the lens. The light from the LED's warps around the magnets as it passes through the fluid. This is the basic version video with one magnet from youtube user, SirZerp, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD6C6f2nu0U .   For more information that you ever wanted to know about Sirzerp's work, you can download and view the pictures and movies at http://www.sendspace.com/folder/on9dhg

The Dynamic Etalon, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxCYvDjFRM , was conceived and developed as an economical tool for magnetic research.  Basically, this unique lens is a Fabry-Perot Interferometer combined with a modified Hele-Shaw cell. The nano particle mixture within the lens respond dynamically in the presence of a magnetic field.  Additional information on the Dynamic Etalon method, http://www.nanomagnetics.us/dynamic%20etalon.htm


GB
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 06:24:38 PM by gravityblock »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #137 on: September 03, 2010, 07:17:09 AM »
Hi wings and gravityblock,

Those are great links.  I've actually stored the most of them for reference. But what we're looking at is how the 'lines of force' resolve themselves under conditions of 'induction'.  I wonder if this results in some kind of quantum resolution where the 'charge' distribution of the field needs to be perfectly distributed.  It is my opinion that this is the required or preferred state of the 'field'.  It's the closest it can come to equilibrium or to a 'rest state'.  And hence those symmetries?  They're blow away - just so perfect.

But I'm still inclined to suspect that the field itself can be entirely divorced from its material source.  In which case that would certainly explain the Faraday paradox.  It just begs some rather awkward questions related to the material properties of a magnetic field.  I think that classicists should revisit these questions.  LOL. 

Regards,
Rosemary

nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #138 on: September 04, 2010, 02:10:33 AM »
hi all

i'd like to throw an idea into the magnetic 'melting pot'...

over the years there's been a lot of discussion about the possibility of the existence of magnetic monopoles

this seems to be to be a 'non argument'

it appears to me that what we call the 'poles' of a magnet are in fact either the convergence, or divergence, of the magnetic spin field (what we call the magnetic field lines)

we see the similarity between, say, a bar magnet and an energised solenoidal inductor and say that they both exhibit two poles (under steady-state conditions), one at each end of the structure

we say that a compass brought near either magnet or steady-state inductor (aka electro-magnet) will point either towards or away from the 'poles' of the structure

however, we also know if we unwind the inductor (whilst still energised) then the magnetic field lines now all circle the wire with the same spin direction - either clockwise or anticlockwise viewing the wire end-on, dependent on the current direction through the wire


we've removed the condition which supposedly provided two magnetic 'poles' - does this mean that our compass no longer 'knows' where to point?

No - because a compass doesn't point towards or away from a 'pole' - it aligns with the spin direction of the magnetic field

now the compass will align with the tangent of the magnetic field lines circulating the energised wire

reverse the current and the compass turns and points the opposite way, following a reversed circle around the wire

so, the nearest we get to a physical, macro, 'magnetic monopole' is a single, straight, energised conductor


what we do, when we start to coil an energised conductor is to cause all the magnetic field lines to enter (like a torus) at one side of the coil and they will all exit (like a torus) at the other side of the coil

our compass isn't 'pointing at a pole' - instead it's just aligning with the field direction - at one end all the circulating field lines are directed into the coil/ magnet structure - at the other end all the field lines are directed away from the structure

we can't place our compass inside a physical magnet, but if we placed it inside our inductor, would it still point to the 'North pole'?  No, it would point to the other end now, because it just continues to align with the spin/ field direction


does the magnetic behaviour of a solenoidal coil tell us anything about the solid physical magnet?

well, the nearest atomic equivalent to current flow through a conductor would be the orbital movement of the mobile charge carriers (ie. electrons)

an electron orbit would be like a single coil of our energised inductor, so we could expect that our atom would exhibit a torus of magnetic field lines, all entering at one 'side'. perpendicular to the electron orbit - and all exiting at the opposide 'side'

by aligning the spin direction of the mobile charge carrier orbits, we 're effectively packing a huge number of single-turn inductors next to each other (in three dimensions) so that their magnetic field lines all flow through the solid object as if it were one 'solenoidal' inductor

there are still no 'poles' within, or at the ends of, the physical magnet - just convergence and divergence of magnetic field lines

let me just say that i'm not suggesting this negates Rosemary's thesis - i feel it just helps us to get a better understanding of magnetic behaviour than our old idea which led us down a dead-end street with the concept of magnetic 'poles'

apologies, this post has become a 'bit of a book' - i'll go back to sleep now! :)


all the best
sandy

XS-NRG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #139 on: September 04, 2010, 07:05:00 AM »
Not only the single, straight, energised conductor  :)

I have several bars at home that act like monopoles.
When north is at the left and i turn it 180 degree north is still at the left.
This is because it is influenced by the earths magnetic field.
The field lines of the earths magnetic field are dominant in this material, and that decides which end is north, so no mater how or where you point the bar it always has the same pole configuration.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #140 on: September 04, 2010, 08:35:18 AM »
Hi Sandy,

I wonder if what you're calling a 'monopole' isn't perhaps just a 'single direction'.  Imagine an orbit - first clockwise - then anticlockwise - and, effectively, you've got a closed loop in both instances, but moving in opposing directions in space. 

Now.  Take your toroidal field in the mind's eye, from an inductive or somesuch coil - following Faraday's lines of force.  And then let's assume that the torus is constructed such that the fields move through the centre of the coil and exit the open ends, say from south to north and then circle the structure on the outside - from north to south.  But they're all moving in one direction.  One justification.  If so, then effectively the inner orbit from the south to the north - through the centre of that torus structure is consistent with the justification of the outer orbit.  And there's absolutely NO differentiation between the south and the north in those magnetic field lines.

But the thing is that it's the material of the winding which experiences the difference.  The material on the inside of the torus only experiences a justification from south to north.  The material on the outside of the torus only experiences a justification from the north to the south.  Effectively it's the material properties in the inductor/conductor - whatever, that is responding to a SINGLE justification.

Therefore it's the winding itself that has created a shield that holds the two halves of the magnetic lines of force apart.  They now appear to orbit in opposition.  And it's that apparent 'opposition' that is the source of the voltage imbalance - is my opinion.  In other words it is the material magnetic field induced from the the winding itself that now responds to an apparent monopolar magnetic field - a half orbit - from the magnetic lines of force.  As I see it - this apparent break in the lines of force is equivalent to a voltage imbalance - a broken symmetry - a half orbit from the magnetic field.  And this results in a spatial adjustment of the atoms inside that coil.  And that adjustment is our source of energy - be it current flow - or, on a broader macrocosmic level - gravity.  It's the same thing - the same spatial adjustment.

Regards,
Rosemary

nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #141 on: September 04, 2010, 05:19:32 PM »
hi Rosemary

i think we're describing the same characteristics from different PoVs


my main point is that we 'muddy the waters' for ourselves by describing a magnet/ solenoid/ inductor, etc, as having two poles when it has none

we then all go off down a 'no-exit' road discussing the possibility of a creating a single-poled  object (magnetic monopole) when we didn't have two poles to start with


we know that around a single straight wire, carrying DC current, the magnetic field will circle the wire (no regular N or S 'pole' here) and it'll be CW or CCW depending on current flow direction

if we now loop that (still energised) wire into a single turn we have a very short solenoid/ inductor

the previously circulating magnetic field is now folded into a 'torus' following the loop - no discontinuities or reversals of fields anywhere

if the the field is directed 'up' outside a (horizontal) loop then the field will be directed 'down' inside the loop


our compass will 'appear' to show that the top of the loop is, say, North, and the underneath of the loop is 'South'

my point is that there is no 'North' pole at the top of the loop (or magnet, or multi-turn solenoid/inductor, etc) - nor is there one anywhere else

if we continue moving the compass through the loop it doesn't reverse, in the centre, to point back at the supposed 'North' pole it just 'passed' - it continues to point along the tangent to the circulating magnetic field (North-pointing end down, say, and South-pointing end up)

so, as the compass moves on, and just leaves the centre of the loop - and is just past where we 'say' the 'South' pole is - the 'South pointing' end of the compass is still directed back along the way from which it's just travelled (as it was when it approached the top of the loop)

standard convention now says that the compass is directed at the 'South pole' of the single loop solenoid - but we've just seen that nothing has changed, the compass is still directed according to the same direction of the field through the centre of its own 'torus' envelope


there IS a difference between the top of the loop and the underneath - and it is nothing to do with 'poles' - the difference is *only* that the field lines at the top of the 'torus' are, say CONverging into the loop, and the field lines at the bottom of the 'torus' are DIverging out of the loop



standard convention would describe the bringing togther of two magnets/ solenoids, 'N pole' to 'N pole' to say that the two 'poles' repel each other and oppose the attempted joining together 

but we've just found from our experiment, travelling through the 'torus' of field lines, that there are no 'poles'

in the situation just mentioned, we have two field 'tori' (sp?) with opposite field direction (so, either both diverging, or both converging) - there is no way of reconciling the opposite field directions into a single field

the fields may compress but they don't coalesce into a single field - the two sets of magnet/ solenoid/ etc fields physically resist any attempts to join the two


however. if we now present two field 'tori' where the underneath of the top field torus is , say, diverging and the top of the lower field 'torus' is converging, then the two fields are already aligned and they can join to form a longer field path around the two magnets/ solenoids, etc

if fact, there is a positive attraction between the two fields to join in such a way and we experience a physical 'pull' or attraction forcing the two together

magnets attract physically, not because they present unlike 'poles' to each other, but because their two separate fields can merge into one field - and the nature of the field is that for 'some reason' it attempts to reduce its own path length to the minimum possible distance


i think this is where the RA thesis of 'Zipon strings' seeks to describe a possible underlying 'mechanism' at the micro level which would explain fundamental behaviour/ characteristics/ forces which we observe when we're dealing with the magnetic phenomena - ie., to explain the 'some reason' i just mentioned above


woohoo - my meds are definitely wearing off - i need a drink with my old pal, Maxwell's Demon!

ciao bella
sandy

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #142 on: September 04, 2010, 07:04:02 PM »
Sandy - hi again.  I think you're right.  I think that the justification - or as you describe it - the diverging/converging lines determine the justification of the field.  It only determines the 'direction of the orbiting fields rather than creating a north or a south.  But here's the thing.  Imagine that the lines of force comprise magnetic dipoles and literally put a north diverging field against another north diverging and - if there ARE particles there then they're only obeying the laws of charge.  They're repelling each other at 180 degrees - or a straight line.  The only thing missing in this picture is that particle.  And if it's only missing because it's too fast and too small to be detected - then maybe there is such a particle?

What's actually contrary to classical thinking is that particles could make a field.  But again one doesn't need more than Faraday's lines of force and those magnetic dipoles and it's reasonably logical to develop a field from that.  It's not as if they're 'like charges' - which then may be argued in terms of Pauli's exclusion principle.  If they're intrisically bipolar - then a field structure is a logical consequence.  Magnets join up.  Why not magnetic particles?

Anyway.  I agree.  We're not arguing.   ;D

Regards,
Rosemary

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #143 on: September 04, 2010, 08:24:54 PM »
When two magnets are placed in close proximity to each other, they will try to find an equilibrium by aligning their fields to point in the same direction.  Rotating one magnet on it's magnetic axis, does not change the direction of their fields, thus there will be no force on the other magnet to cause it to rotate also. 

Scotty's test at the beginning of this thread does not prove the magnetic field remains stationary when the magnet is rotating.  Scotty's test shows the magnets are in equilibrium with each other by having their fields pointing in the same direction.  Harvey's test with the computer monitor, also shows the direction of the magnet's field does not change when the magnet is rotated.  If the direction of the field changed, then there would have been a corresponding change detected on the computer monitor.

If I give you a rope to hold in your hands, and I pull on the rope, then you will experience a force and will be attracted to me.  If I rotate myself while you're holding the rope and the tension of the rope remains the same, will you rotate also?  Of course not, because you won't experience any force.

GB

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #144 on: September 04, 2010, 08:51:23 PM »
When two magnets are placed in close proximity to each other, they will try to find an equilibrium by aligning their fields to point in the same direction.  Rotating one magnet on it's magnetic axis, does not change the direction of their fields, thus there will be no force on the other magnet to cause it to rotate also.
Agreed.

Scotty's test at the beginning of this thread does not prove the magnetic field remains stationary when the magnet is rotating.  Scotty's test shows the magnets are in equilibrium with each other by having their fields pointing in the same direction.
Not sure that this is right.  He doesn't actually say which direction the magnet is pointing.  Frankly I think it's immaterial.  They could be opposing or not.  It would not change the effect. 

Harvey's test with the computer monitor, also shows the direction of the magnet's field does not change when the magnet is rotated.  If the direction of the field changed, then there would have been a corresponding change detected on the computer monitor.
Agreed.  But the 'paradox' is begged when one assumes that the field will rotate with the magnet.  If the magnetic field is the consequence of an electromagnetic interaction as we're taught, - then one would expect there to be some variation to the lines of force as the field is rotated at 90 degrees to the magnetic field.  We're taught that it's a magnetic field - changing in time - that induces and electric field.  And an electric field changing in time induces a magnetic field.  Where is there any evidence of an electric field and a consequent changing magnetic field?  What we're actually seeing is a magnetic field standing 'still' and a magnet moving at 90 degrees to that field.  And it's not effecting the magnetic lines of force at all.  Unless we ignore the laws of induction and decide that magnetic field can manifest without an applied electric field.  Then that's fine.  It's just not classical. Classical assumption requires a continual electromagnetic interaction even in permanent magnets. 

I've actually asked a certain Professor Lyndsay this exact question.  He assured me that there was some electric interaction within the material itself that produced the magnetic field.  I argued that a permanent magnet defies this assumption.  I still claim it.

If I give you a rope to hold in your hands, and I pull on the rope, then you will experience a force and will be attracted to me.  If I rotate myself while you're holding the rope and the tension of the rope remains the same, will you rotate also?  Of course not, because you won't experience any force.
That might work with rope because it's got a torque from the way it's constructed.  But if I was holding the end of a pipe and you were rotating that pipe then I'd definitely feel that force. 

Rosemary

What I'm trying to point to is that one can have a magnet on magnet interaction and that interaction is energetic - but it does NOT result in an induced electric field.  And I think this 'faraday's paradox' is precisely the evidence that the field exists independently of the material of the magnet itself.  It's 'extraneous' to the magnet - but it also belongs to the magnet.

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #145 on: September 05, 2010, 05:41:44 AM »
I'll be releasing a video soon that will put an end to this debate.  I will show the magnetic field does indeed rotate with the magnet.  This experiment will also show the magnetic fields are constantly disconnecting due to tension of the magnetic field lines.  A tension can only develop between the rotating magnet and stationary magnet if the field of the rotating magnet is also rotating. It is this disconnecting of the field lines that keeps the stationary magnet from rotating.  The field lines will disconnect due to tension before it has enough force to overcome the mass of the stationary magnet to cause it to rotate.  If both magnets are rotated at the same rate, then the magnetic fields of both magnets will stay connected and rotate with both magnets.

The attraction force between two magnets is reduced when one magnet is stationary while the other is rotating.  This is due to the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting due to tension developed between the rotating field and the stationary field.  When I can measure the difference in the force between the magnets, then I'll release a video showing this.

GB
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 06:54:14 AM by gravityblock »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #146 on: September 05, 2010, 08:52:07 AM »
I'll be releasing a video soon that will put an end to this debate.  I will show the magnetic field does indeed rotate with the magnet.  This experiment will also show the magnetic fields are constantly disconnecting due to tension of the magnetic field lines.  A tension can only develop between the rotating magnet and stationary magnet if the field of the rotating magnet is also rotating. It is this disconnecting of the field lines that keeps the stationary magnet from rotating.  The field lines will disconnect due to tension before it has enough force to overcome the mass of the stationary magnet to cause it to rotate.  If both magnets are rotated at the same rate, then the magnetic fields of both magnets will stay connected and rotate with both magnets.

The attraction force between two magnets is reduced when one magnet is stationary while the other is rotating.  This is due to the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting due to tension developed between the rotating field and the stationary field.  When I can measure the difference in the force between the magnets, then I'll release a video showing this.

GB

Frankly if you can prove that a rotating magnet also rotates its magnetic flux or field lines - then this will definitively resolve the Faraday paradox.  But the interaction of flux lines is a given.  They are subject to vagaries of proximation and they will default to their quantum 'best' rest state.  But what's required to prove this is that the rotational axis is stable and at 90 degrees to the lines of force.  And I'm not sure you need to 'measure' the force provided only that you use two magnets of the same weight, material type, and shape.  But evidence of a random connect/disconnect between flux in an interference pattern - won't cut it as proof, as this could be associated with sundry events in the orbit of the spinning magnet and it's marginal variations in location during that spin.  Also.  I wonder if it would be better to keep the magnet away from the actual drill bit as the drill itself is inductive.  Perhaps one needs to spin the magnet on some kind of non inductive axis some distance from a motor.

Very interesting GB.

Regards,
Rosemary

gravityblock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • Get Dish Now! Free Dish Network System from VMC Satellite
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #147 on: September 05, 2010, 09:26:07 AM »
Frankly if you can prove that a rotating magnet also rotates its magnetic flux or field lines - then this will definitively resolve the Faraday paradox.  But the interaction of flux lines is a given.  They are subject to vagaries of proximation and they will default to their quantum 'best' rest state.  But what's required to prove this is that the rotational axis is stable and at 90 degrees to the lines of force.  And I'm not sure you need to 'measure' the force provided only that you use two magnets of the same weight, material type, and shape.  But evidence of a random connect/disconnect between flux in an interference pattern - won't cut it as proof, as this could be associated with sundry events in the orbit of the spinning magnet and it's marginal variations in location during that spin.  Also.  I wonder if it would be better to keep the magnet away from the actual drill bit as the drill itself is inductive.  Perhaps one needs to spin the magnet on some kind of non inductive axis some distance from a motor.

Very interesting GB.

Regards,
Rosemary

When there are more field lines connected, then the magnetic attraction between the two will be stronger (I think you will agree with this).  Fewer lines connected means it will have a weaker force.  The experiment will show that a rotating magnet and a stationary magnet will have less attraction, than if both were stationary.  I will place the stationary magnet above the rotating magnet at a distance and with enough tension by using a spring, where it doesn't fall towards the rotating magnet at a high RPM.  At a much lower RPM, then the stationary magnet will fall towards the slow rotating magnet due to an increase in attraction overcoming the tension.  The rotating magnet will be spun by hand.

I think the sundry events in the orbit of the spinning magnet and it's marginal variations in location during the spin will be negligible and can be easily disputed with another similar experiment I have already done.  I guess I'll be making two videos now, lol.  My hand experiments thus far confirms what I have been saying, unless my mind and hand are playing tricks on me, and this is always a possibility.  This is the reason why I want to measure this before I release a video.

GB

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #148 on: September 05, 2010, 09:47:47 AM »
When there are more field lines connected, then the magnetic attraction between the two will be stronger (I think you will agree with this).  Fewer lines connected means it will have a weaker force.  The experiment will show that a rotating magnet and a stationary magnet will have less attraction, than if both were stationary.  I will place the stationary magnet above the rotating magnet at a distance and with enough tension by using a spring, where it doesn't fall towards the rotating magnet at a high RPM.  At a much lower RPM, then the stationary magnet will fall towards the slow rotating magnet due to an increase in attraction overcoming the tension.  The rotating magnet will be spun by hand.

I think the sundry events in the orbit of the spinning magnet and it's marginal variations in location during the spin will be negligible and can be easily disputed with another similar experiment I have already done.  I guess I'll be making two videos now, lol.  My hand experiments thus far confirms what I have been saying, unless my mind and hand are playing tricks on me, and this is always a possibility.  This is the reason why I want to measure this before I release a video.

GB

I think I get it.  That's a clever build.  The two magnets attract - the spring extends - the flux lines merge - you twist the magnet on the spring - the flux lines break - the spring relaxes.  Perhaps you need a plastic spring or you'll be introducing a variable.  Provided only that the magnet's position on its axis is invariable - then I would be inclined to agree.  It would mean that the flux IS moving in relation to the spin of the magnet.  My only concern is that you actually don't need the spring at all.  Rather position the magnets that the flux merges fully.  Then twist either one or the other magnet.  If there's a break in the flux then your argument is proved.  And you don't complicate the test with positional variations  in the magnet.  Just a thought.

I'd be really interested to see both experiments.  I think we all would.  Well done GB.  That's a really clever experiment.

Regards,
Rosemary

Added.  btw.  I think the complication in your experiment with the use of a spring is that it could be argued that the spring itself is overcoming the force of attraction between the magnets.  But it would be hard to argue this if the the spring was separated from the magnet itself.  Somehow hung in series -----rod - spring - bearing - rod - magnet .... something like that?  Not sure if you're up to such niceties - or even if they're strictly required.   ;D
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 10:09:32 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4076
Re: Faraday's Paradox experiment
« Reply #149 on: September 06, 2010, 07:07:32 AM »
maybe just two magnets with holes in center levitating on a plastic or wood rod in repelling action, then spin the lower one and observe if distance between them is changed