# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Discussion board help and admin topics => Half Baked Ideas => Topic started by: gravityblock on February 17, 2009, 09:16:22 AM

Title: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on February 17, 2009, 09:16:22 AM
According to wikipedia:

"Magnetic pole model: Although for many purposes it is convenient to think of a magnet as having distinct north and south magnetic poles, the concept of poles should not be taken literally: it is merely a way of referring to the two different ends of a magnet. The magnet does not have distinct "north" or "south" particles on opposing sides."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet)

I had come to this conclusion on my own and the wikipedia article suggests this also (although I realize wikipedia is not always correct). This is total confusion to what is taught and what really is.

Let's analyze the flow of current:

On the topside of the loop, the current is flowing from left to right or from west to east. On the bottom side of the loop, the current is flowing from right to left or from east to west. So, according to the above circuit, the flow of current is changing direction or polarity. This is not correct. The current flow is still moving in the same direction relative to the topside and bottom side of the loop and has the same polarity. I think most of us will agree with this.

It is the same in a magnet. The magnetic field doesn't have a north or south pole. The magnetic field is still moving in the same direction regardless of what side it is flowing from or flowing to. If the North pole side has a clockwise spin, then the South pole side will have a counter-clockwise spin relative to each other. Although the spins are different relative to each other, the magnetic field is still moving in the same direction and have the same polarity. The spin will determine which direction the magnetic field of flux will flow from or flow to relative to each other.

The conclusion is it may be convenient to refer to a magnet as having a north and a south pole, we must realize this only refers to the different ends of the magnet and does not mean a magnet's north pole side has a different polarity than the south pole side.

This is total confusion to what is taught and what really is.

I truly hope I am not the author of confusion here. Please correct me if I am wrong, cause I am wrong more than right.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: CARN0T on February 18, 2009, 06:02:13 AM
Hello, Gravityb,

I found your thoughts to be very interesting.  I am reminded that an electric dipole does have two charge centers spaced apart.  And, as you say, a magnetic dipole does not.

Funny, that on the outside, an electric dipole and a magnetic dipole have exactly the same type of field properties.  But on the inside, they are entirely different.

Ernie Rogers

According to wikipedia:

"Magnetic pole model: Although for many purposes it is convenient to think of a magnet as having distinct north and south magnetic poles, the concept of poles should not be taken literally: it is merely a way of referring to the two different ends of a magnet. The magnet does not have distinct "north" or "south" particles on opposing sides."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet)

I had come to this conclusion on my own and the wikipedia article suggests this also
----<SNIP>----
I truly hope I am not the author of confusion here. Please correct me if I am wrong, cause I am wrong more than right.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on February 18, 2009, 05:05:34 PM
Hello, Gravityb,

I found your thoughts to be very interesting.  I am reminded that an electric dipole does have two charge centers spaced apart.  And, as you say, a magnetic dipole does not.

Funny, that on the outside, an electric dipole and a magnetic dipole have exactly the same type of field properties.  But on the inside, they are entirely different.

Ernie Rogers

They are only different on the inside in regards to each other because we're not doing it right. Do it right and they'll be the same on the inside and outside.

When you create an electric field from a magnetic field, then the electric field will have a counter emf to the magnetic field that created it because they are not relative to each other, meaning no perpetual state of movement between their infinities.

Another way to say this, is the north and south poles have a field that are relative to one another, thus they are not in opposition to each other, meaning they are in a perpetual state of movement within their own infinity.

It is the same way with an electric field. The negative and positive sides are not in opposition to each other. The field is moving in the same directions relative to each other, meaning they are in a perpetual state of movement within their own infinity. (Whaaaaaaaaaaaat)

Because the electric field was created from the magnetic field and the two fields are not relative to each other, this breaks the perpetual state of movement between the two different infinities.

Create an electric field that is not in opposition to the induced magnetic field that created it, then we can have overunity because their will be a perpetual state of movement between both infinities (the two infinities will become one).

This is what broli and I are working on. We believe it is possible to have a stationary coil to rotate the magnets where the magnet is rotating on its magnetic axis so that the magnetic field doesn't change.

Since the magnetic field doesn't change, then there is no counter emf. No counter emf means Lenz's law does not apply.

Remember it is the spin of the electrons orientated in the same direction as not to oppose each other that creates a permanent magnetic field in a permanent magnet. Since the electrons can do this, we can do this also. We are doing it now, but doing it wrong.

We make a coil of wire that aligns more of the electrons in the coil of wire to have the same spin similar to a permanent magnet, but then we use a magnet in the wrong way to create another emf field that opposes the spin of the electrons (this is stupidity if you really think about it. This is not the way the electrons are doing it in a permanent magnet....LOL).

Why would we create a coil that aligns more of the electrons in the coil to have the same spin and then later oppose this spin by using the magnet wrong? When we decide to do it right and use the permanent magnet so it can rotate on its magnetic axis or another method so it doesn't create a counter emf, then we'll have a permanent magnetic motor similar to a permanent magnet and have overunity. Don't say we can't do this because the electrons in a magnet are doing it right. Why can't we? We can do it right once we forget everything we've been taught about conversion of energy.

Please note I may not be using the term relative in its proper terms, but you should get the idea if you study this.

Oh, I apologize for being repetitive in what I'm saying. I am doing this so it will stick in your mind. I'm trying to undo all the years of being brainwashed with wrong theories and concepts. If you don't think this theory is right, then you can ignore it. Hopefully this theory can be proven to be correct, then you will have to accept it and will be happy that it is correct.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on February 18, 2009, 10:36:24 PM
A brief side note on the term of overunity:

I have used this term in previous posts. I want to clear this up before someone throws the conservation of energy and other laws at me.

When I have used this term, I am referring to an unlimited amount of energy for output that is available to us in the system.

Let's say the system has 100 units of energy available for output. This means we can't use more than 100 units of energy continuously or at any given time.  This does mean we can use 100 units (minus heat losses, etc.) of energy continuously. The important thing to remember is the heat losses and other losses does not lower the amount of energy in the system. It only lowers the amount of energy that is available to the system.

When you have an overunity motor then the total amount of energy that is available to you at any given time is the total amount of energy available in the system. The total amount of energy in the system will always be available to the system for output but not more than that at any given time. This does not break the conservation of energy or any other known and well established laws.

How do we make more energy available to the system at any given time:

1) More turns of wire in the coil.
2) Make the core bigger with the right materials.
2) Bigger and stronger permanent magnets.
3) Using materials that have the highest magnetic permeability known, etc.

I think you get the idea.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: CARN0T on February 19, 2009, 01:36:23 AM
They are only different on the inside in regards to each other because we're not doing it right. Do it right and they'll be the same on the inside and outside.

Would you care to illustrate your point using the HF molecule, which has a strong electric dipole moment?

Ernie Rogers
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on February 19, 2009, 07:42:03 AM
Would you care to illustrate your point using the HF molecule, which has a strong electric dipole moment?

Ernie Rogers

I'm not sure an illustration is necessary since the the dipole moment is simply a measure of how strong the charges involved are and how separated they are. Since you're referring to a molecule and not just a particle such as an electron, we must take into account the bond dipole moment.

The HF molecule is polar by virtue of polar covalent bonds - in the covalent bond electrons are displaced towards the more electronegative fluorine atom.

The Bond Dipole is two atoms in a bond, such that the electronegativity of one atom causes electrons to be drawn towards the other, in turn causing a partial negative charge. There is therefore a difference in polarity across the bond, which causes a dipole moment.

Forget about polarity. Forget about north and south poles. Forget about negative and positive. The things I asked you to forget, they should only be used as a reference point (Relativity BS that causes confusion). The bottom line is electrons always have a negative charge. The path the electrons are taking inside magnets are in an infinite loop that are not in opposition to each other. Same thing with the HF molecule. Same thing in a coil.....until we have it rotate a magnet improperly.  Take a magnet and hit it several times with a hammer, this will cause the electrons inside the magnet to align themselves in a way that they are in opposition to each other, thus you lose your magnetic field. Now the magnet is no longer a magnet and can no longer convert energy.

There are two things we need to know. How to align more of the electrons to take the same path. We do this correctly. How to have the electrons in a circuit to rotate a magnet that doesn't create a counter emf. We don't do this right. I am saying it can be done because the electrons are doing it inside a magnet without losing its magnetic field unless an outside force causes it to re-align in opposition with each other.

When the electrons are in opposition to each other, their magnetic fields get canceled out. When they cancel each other, then you have no net force. Same thing when you have a coil where the wire is wrapped in opposite directions to each other, thus canceling each other out with no net force.

Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: CARN0T on February 19, 2009, 05:10:50 PM
. . . .
The HF molecule is polar by virtue of polar covalent bonds - in the covalent bond electrons are displaced towards the more electronegative fluorine atom.

The Bond Dipole is two atoms in a bond, such that the electronegativity of one atom causes electrons to be drawn towards the other, in turn causing a partial negative charge. There is therefore a difference in polarity across the bond, which causes a dipole moment.

Is there an electric field within the bond?  Which way does it point?
Quote
. . . .
Take a magnet and hit it several times with a hammer, this will cause the electrons inside the magnet to align themselves in a way that they are in opposition to each other, thus you lose your magnetic field. Now the magnet is no longer a magnet and can no longer convert energy.
. . . .

When you hit it with a hammer and it loses its field, does it lose energy?

Ernie Rogers
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: Creativity on February 19, 2009, 07:14:59 PM
A brief side note on the term of overunity:

I have used this term in previous posts. I want to clear this up before someone throws the conservation of energy and other laws at me.

When I have used this term, I am referring to an unlimited amount of energy for output that is available to us in the system.

Let's say the system has 100 units of energy available for output. This means we can't use more than 100 units of energy continuously or at any given time.  This does mean we can use 100 units (minus heat losses, etc.) of energy continuously. The important thing to remember is the heat losses and other losses does not lower the amount of energy in the system. It only lowers the amount of energy that is available to the system.

When you have an overunity motor then the total amount of energy that is available to you at any given time is the total amount of energy available in the system. The total amount of energy in the system will always be available to the system for output but not more than that at any given time. This does not break the conservation of energy or any other known and well established laws.

How do we make more energy available to the system at any given time:

1) More turns of wire in the coil.
2) Make the core bigger with the right materials.
2) Bigger and stronger permanent magnets.
3) Using materials that have the highest magnetic permeability known, etc.

I think you get the idea.

what is unity and underunity then?
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on February 19, 2009, 07:52:17 PM
@ CARNOT:

Short answer to all those questions, is I don't really know. I will give you my best guesses.

I believe an electric dipole moment would point from the negative charge towards the positive charge (Fluorine pointing towards Hydrogen) with the electron being displaced towards the fluorine atom.

I believe there is an electric field within the bond. It may be a static electric field, but then that is in regards to a particular frame of reference, so in another frame of reference it may not be static (LOL - either the thing is changing or it is not....but in physics it can do both at the same time - LOL).

It doesn't lose energy after hitting it with a hammer. The energy is still there, just no net force. Remember energy and mass are interchangeable (E = MC2).

Excellent questions. Even if I don't know the answers, it gets me to think.

"They say the day you stop thinking is the day you die."
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on February 19, 2009, 09:04:29 PM
what is unity and underunity then?

Underunity is what we're doing now. You get less energy out of the system at any given time than what is available to the system at any given time (with or without a load). Need a continuous input of energy. Not able to get to the creator of it's infinity with or without a load. Does not break any known physic laws.

Unity is breaking even. You get the same energy out of the system as you put into the system at any given time without a load. You still have to provide a continuous input of energy when there is a load. Able to get to the creator of it's infinity without a load but is less than the creator of it's infinity with a load. Does not break any known physic laws.

Overunity is providing energy out that is equal to or less than the total amount of energy available to the system at any given time with or without a load and a continuous input of equal energy that came out of the system. Able to get to the creator of it's infinity with or without a load and becomes one with the creator of it's infinity but can't be greater than it's creator. Does not break any known physic laws.

Over-over unity is getting more out of the system than what is available to the system at any given time with or without a load. Able to get to the creator of it's infinity with or without a load and becomes greater than the creator of it's own infinity. Breaks many laws of physics.

I tried not to bring infinity into this, but it makes it easier to understand, at least for me.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: CARN0T on February 19, 2009, 09:57:31 PM
@ CARNOT:
"They say the day you stop thinking is the day you die."

In that case, we may just live forever.    ;D

Ernie Rogers
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on February 19, 2009, 10:09:13 PM
In that case, we may just live forever.    ;D

Ernie Rogers

The question is, will we have any of our sanity left from all this thinking.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: broli on February 23, 2009, 01:56:40 AM
This is really an interesting topic as it shows tat magnetic fields are completely unintuitive. If you indeed consider it to be two monopole particles like electrical charge you'll soon find out the part in between them does not match

Below is an interesting comic I made that will challenge your knowledge. (Best open it in a separate window/tab)

Everyday I feel like a kid that rediscovers the outside world. I feel like I have gotten wiser but have learned nothing at the same time. The knowledge anyone posses is a mere drop in the ocean of knowledge.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: CARN0T on February 23, 2009, 03:48:20 AM
Hello, Broli,

Your electric dipole field looks fine.  Do you remember this Maxwell equation?

div B  =  0

One meaning is that the magnetic flux lines don't terminate.  Even with a permanent magnet, the lines must continue through the center to form complete loops, similar to the field within a coil.

Ernie Rogers
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: broli on February 23, 2009, 10:56:12 AM
I don't see gaus's law like that. Instead of saying the flux is zero it says more that...you can never enclose a magnetic monopole. The dipole will always end up out of the enclosed surface thus making the flux zero. This makes sense because a magnetic dipole are not two particles like gravity block said. But they are more one entity. A magnetic dipole is thus misnamed and should be named magnetic moment to stop the confusion. But this doesn't mean a magnetic monopole doesn't exists.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on February 23, 2009, 11:56:53 AM
I don't see gaus's law like that. Instead of saying the flux is zero it says more that...you can never enclose a magnetic monopole. The dipole will always end up out of the enclosed surface thus making the flux zero. This makes sense because a magnetic dipole are not two particles like gravity block said. But they are more one entity. A magnetic dipole is thus misnamed and should be named magnetic moment to stop the confusion. But this doesn't mean a magnetic monopole doesn't exists.

Thanks for simplifying this for me. As you know, I have a tendency to over complicate things that may cause confusion which is not productive. This is an inherent fault of mine that you have pointed out to me, and I will be working on this fault. Thank You!

Everyday I feel like a kid that rediscovers the outside world. I feel like I have gotten wiser but have learned nothing at the same time. The knowledge anyone posses is a mere drop in the ocean of knowledge.

This is so true. We can have all the knowledge in the world, but if we don't understand this knowledge or do anything with it, then what good has it benefited us?

Let's try to understand the knowledge we have and do something with it.  I think we our on our way to achieving this if we all work together!
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: Low-Q on February 24, 2009, 11:39:17 AM
I think so too, @gravityblock.

I have had a feeling that magnetic poles really isn't poles. It is just a magnetic flow that enters one end and exit in the other end - infenitly. A loop which is already closed and cannot be used to do work "outside" it. There is also a current flow, but not across the magnet. The flow follows the same path as a coil - round and around in plane angular to the magnetic field direction. So the electrons are mostly spinning in one direction like a numberless amount of tiny coils.

I have a question:
How much magnetix flux could we have if ALL electrons was spinning in the same direction (said that the material was able to maintain its shape and volume)? As far as I know it is just a fraction of all electrons that it more or less spinning in the same direction - even on the strongest neo-magnets. Normally a magnetic flux of 100 or more Tesla will break apart an iron core. So the question is hypothetical.

Br.

Vidar
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: rangerover444 on June 18, 2009, 10:48:06 AM
Sorry to interrupted the party, but maybe before moving on to electricity
and charges, it may be beneficial to find out a few things about magnetismâ€¦..
Although I like the drawings above, but there is a small mistake according to
tests I have done.

There is a circulation around a bar magnet and this circulation look like that :

Although itâ€™s not accepted by modern physics, some simple tests can prove that.
There is a lot after that, but if you miss the basic of what magnets are, there
is no sense to move on to other systems that based on magnetism (at least
Thatâ€™s how my logic works).

Let me know what your thought are.

Cheers.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: IotaYodi on June 18, 2009, 03:41:49 PM
Here in Florida we have a 100 tesla reusable pulse magnet. It can only be used a few times before it explodes. The equivalent of 200 sticks of dynamite going off simultaneously. That is a major gravitational force.

The wires used in the center core are comprised of copper and silver, a chemical mix design to act like concrete.  While the copper is very strong it cracks easily, just like concrete.  The silver acts as reinforcement  to keep the copper intact for a longer time, but even with the reinforcing, it's only a matter of time until the magnet core explodes. In fact, the explosion will be so massive that the whole buidling has to be evacuated when the magnet is in use to protect nearby researchers from the expected deafening sound.

The magnet's reusable design consists of two parts, an outer section, or outsert cylinder, that is nearly six feet wide and five feet tall, and an 8" diameter insert comprised of nine separate coils. Together, they weigh nearly 18,000 lbs.  The wires used within the coils are as small as 100 atoms in diameter.  The entire device will be supercooled to "high-temperature superconductor" levels when in use, drawing 7% of Tallahassee's available power supply.

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39289/113/
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 18, 2009, 04:15:34 PM
Normal Magnets are made of stable isotopes, their fields are very stable and don't fluctuate without applying some form of interaction.

Unstable Magnetic Isotopes on the other hand do have fluctuating Magnetic fields because of their Radioactive nature, when a particle either emits or absorbs energy its entire system is effected because the system has to try to equalize the lost and or gained energy to maintain conservation of its own bound energy system, Radioactive magnets can do work because their fields fluctuate, Stable field magnets need an outside source of energy to fluctuate their fields to do work.

be careful playing with Radioactive Stator Magnets!
Jerry ;)
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: gravityblock on June 19, 2009, 06:12:14 AM
Thanks rangerover for the illustrations.  I have seen that proposed before and wonder why it is rarely mentioned, because it doesn't seem out of the realm for being a possibility.

Here's another diagram of the magnetic field.  Hopefully we can get a good discussion going.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 19, 2009, 07:10:02 AM
Thanks rangerover for the illustrations.  I have seen that proposed before and wonder why it is rarely mentioned, because it doesn't seem out of the realm for being a possibility.

Here's another diagram of the magnetic field.  Hopefully we can get a good discussion going.

Hi GB.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

it's kinda of cool.

Jerry ;)
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: rangerover444 on June 19, 2009, 07:53:14 AM
Thanks GB for the drawing and not automatically rejecting my proposed
magnetic circulation idea.

Before I will comment on your drawing, let me explain a few principles about
magnetism as a results of tests Iâ€™ve done over the past 3 years or so.

First of all in order to create a motion of particles we need a motive for that,
otherwise they will go to sleepâ€¦..lol.  Now, we already know that magnets are
attracting and repelling, and also moving. So we can assume (to start with), that
their motion have something to do with their natural inherited ability to attract
or repel. That bring us to further thoughts, that in order for them to move, we
need two kinds of them, since one particle with one pole at each end, could never
decide on itâ€™s identity and hesitate what to doâ€¦â€¦lol

Therefore we need two of them - complementary opposites, in order to move.
Now if they will move mostly by repelling - they will not have a direction, since
Repelling knows how to direct away and not to aim on a specific directionâ€¦
So in order to move they need attraction, and attraction could happen between
the two opposite types - one North pole individual magnets and the other South
pole individual magnets.  They can be also â€œrepel from behindâ€ by the same type
Of magnets.

But here comes another issue :  If their motion is driven by attraction (in front)
And repletion (from behind), why they do not â€œstickâ€ to the first opposite they
Find ? And stay with it forever, not even going out to moviesâ€¦.lol
Well, letâ€™s put it this way, they are happy to meet their opposite complementary
Particle, but there is a long line of them, or call it a stream of them coming towards
Our particle.  And behind it, there is also a long line of the same kind particle that
Are eager to meet their opposite ones, say hello and move on to the next.

So in this case we have two streams of particles going in the opposite directions
that are â€œfast datingâ€ their mates and moving on. Here comes another trick that
Facilitate their interchanging places - spiraling, they are moving in a right hand
Screw like twist. That helps them to keep their trajectory in straight lines (even
When they are in orbit, this spiraling keeps them in stable orbit), and another
Reason is that each stream can â€œfitâ€ exactly into the stream that runs in the
Opposite direction.

If you want to visualize it, think about two chain links that are â€œwrappingâ€
Around each other while â€œclimbingâ€ over each other, in a right hand twisted motion.

Well, sorry for the long description, I guess we will talk about your drawing
In the next post.

Hope it helped.

Cheers.

Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: rangerover444 on June 19, 2009, 10:11:09 AM
And to make one more point clear about electricity and magnetism :
During 1800-1900 Farady, Gauss, Lorenz, Maxwell and others where fascinated by
their new discoveries of new energy. We cannot understand it now since itâ€™s
too obvious to us, but at that time it was like discovering America for
the second time : Humanity is going into a new prosperity due to this discovery !!!
And gradually from â€œnaÃ¯ve Faradayâ€ it turns from a research of nature into
a research for technologyâ€¦..  Maxwell equations are still being used today for
all kind of applications !!!

So at one point it all become "science in the name of energy and technology".
And that was when Maxwell determined that there are no such a thing as Magnetic
Monopole - that was the final nail in the â€œMagnetic coffinâ€. Since then, magnets
Were â€œput asideâ€ for their â€œyounger brothers the electrons, photons, protons, neutrons"
and many others, which HAD TO BE INVENTED in order to accommodate the
magnetic phenomena which could not be explained without new particles that
in fact does not exists but used as â€œFillersâ€ where no other explanation could be found.

Just look at the electric theory and see how many manipulation were done in order for
the electrons to carry this energy ?  See what the photons needs to be done in order
â€œto be at the base of light and all the electromagnetic wavesâ€ ?   See how the Atomâ€™s
components (30 of them discovered so far !!!) are suppose to build up one atom, and
how many manipulation where done in order to explain the observations on the
atoms and the different â€œelements periodic tableâ€ ?

Sorry if it sound that harsh, after all I have no complain to anyone, since itâ€˜s really not
my life and everyone make his/her choices in life, so itâ€™s their right to do so, and who
Am I to say something about it.   But looking at all this from the side, looking at the
tendency to make nature look as complicated as possible - does not make sense to me.

I wish other people will realize it for themselves, and stop being led by things other
people told them that this how physics worksâ€¦.

Cheers.

Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: IotaYodi on June 19, 2009, 05:27:11 PM
Quote
The dipole will always end up out of the enclosed surface thus making the flux zero. This makes sense because a magnetic dipole are not two particles like gravity block said. But they are more one entity. A magnetic dipole is thus misnamed and should be named magnetic moment to stop the confusion.
Thats what the string theory seems to dictate too. The dipole is one magnetic entity composed of 2 opposite strings bound to both poles by this theory. The strings may have a natural vibrational frequency being induced externally by the aether itself. Different vibrational frequency's applied to the string may change the tension to a plus or minus.  Ed L. thought it was with 2 dipoles with a neutral force to balance it which makes sense. All this reminds me of Sweets work with cold electricity and the magnetic field being tuned to the earth. Just like teluric currents in earth batterys. The power of cold currents is already evident.

Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: rangerover444 on June 19, 2009, 06:05:30 PM
IotaYodi,

Iâ€™m not that familiar with the string theory, though you may be mixing dipole
and monopoles terms.  Dipole is a particle that have N pole on one end and S pole
on the other end. Thatâ€™s what mainstream consider to be the case.  Ed L. on the
other hand is talking about N pole individual magnets and S pole individual magnets.
These are particles that are one pole, or Monopoles of you will. If Iâ€™m not wrong
he suggest that they are Elongated (though he never mentioned that). But they
posses only one pole.

Maxwell was the first to dismiss their existence and thatâ€™s what is accepted today.
In my opinion Maxwell did not apply the right tests in order to make this discovery,
even though he tried to find them. In general, repeating Maxwell experiments (and his
fellow researchers) in physics classes, is repeating on the same mistake they made,
Therefore if someone want to make this discovery they should try different tests,
based on a â€œblank previous knowledgeâ€

Cheers.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: IotaYodi on June 19, 2009, 10:50:13 PM
Quote
Dipole is a particle that have N pole on one end and S pole
on the other end.
The string theory is still a dipole (as far as they show) but not a particle.
Eds basic drawing is still really a dipole with a neutral up the center. He shows the positive and negative separated. Whether either can exist without the neutral I dont know. If they could then they could become monopoles.
Heres the distressing part for me. Both Stubblefield and Ed L. Died with their secrets mostly unsolved. It really shouldnt have been that way. Neither one could hold a candle to Tesla though. What an amazing mind.
Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: Mk1 on June 20, 2009, 01:02:57 AM
@all

I love Ed !

********One must see book ... http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintronics-The-Secret-World-of-Magnets-2006-by-Howard-Johnson ****************

Title: Re: The author of confusion: North/South Poles and Polarity
Post by: rangerover444 on June 20, 2009, 01:03:35 AM
IotaYodi,

The drawing you are showing had never being commented on by Ed about
itâ€™s meaning. It appears on the front cover of â€˜Magnetic Currentsâ€™ booklet
and so far got hundreds of different interpretations by the public.
On the other hand he clearly stated and showed through his tests that we are
dealing with monopoles that are acting together.

Iâ€™m not familiar with Stubblefield, but I would not expect Ed to hold a candle
to Tesla. No doubt that Tesla was a genius which acted upon his understanding
with a great courage. But he also had some problems. First, he was â€œaddicted
to technology and applicationsâ€, which is ok but not when you study nature.
Second, he never found what where the building block of matter and waves.
Third, his arrogance and craving for attention led him â€œby his noseâ€ and as a
scientists, you canâ€™t afford thatâ€¦.. And lastly, he did not start from the beginning
(from the building blocks and up), which is a common mistakes these days and
back then.

You see, Einstein was a genius also, but since he â€œhad to work with the knowledge
he inherited by othersâ€, there was no way he could do his jobâ€¦â€¦ Therefore
his is only way to push the envelope was through â€œtheoretical scienceâ€â€¦.

There is a distinct difference between â€œTechnology Scienceâ€ and â€œUnderstanding
Natureâ€. The first one gives you the illusion of power, mastering nature, achievements,
and put you in orbit around â€œHuman Needsâ€. In the second one you being led by