The Primer Fields - Breakthrough in our understanding of magnetism

[crazycut06]

No, it's not.
You may also recall that Johnson's "motors" don't work.... unless your name is Mylow.

@crazy:
The north and south "poles" of a bar magnet arise from the same cause as the poles of a solenoid: charge in motion. In the case of the bar magnet the charges that are in motion are the unpaired electrons in certain orbitals of certain atoms, like iron. The electrons in their orbitals possess spin angular momentum. In bulk material that is unmagnetised the electron spins of many atoms are unaligned, but they can become aligned by various processes. The alignment comes from applying an external field of sufficient strength, or even mechanical vibration in the presence of a weaker field. But the field itself ultimately arises from the electron spins and orbital motions. The field lines of these tiny electron magnets go around the orbital motion in closed loops, just like the field of a wire only much smaller and weaker. In the case of the DC solenoid coil, we provide voltage which moves charge through the wire, but once the field is established, no power is lost to the field; the current flows and power is dissipated by the resistance of the wire according to Ohm's law. The steady field itself dissipates no power.

Thinking of "poles" of a bar magnet is verbally misleading. Think of a garden hose. It has two "poles" just like a bar magnet: water goes in one end and comes out the other (and ultimately loops through the external hydrologic cycle and makes it back to the beginning). What happens when you cut a garden hose in half? Do you now have a couple of "one ended" hoses?

If anyone tells you that they can explain how and why electrons orbit nuclei "perpetually", or why moving charge is always accompanied by a magnetic field..... don't believe them. The question is on the order of "why is there something, rather than nothing".  Why are energy levels quantized? Why is there air? What do women really want?

Please try to remember that "conventional" science understands magnetism and magnetic fields fairly well....well enough to work relative miracles of engineering with them, like loudspeakers, CRT displays, electric motors of all kinds (and very high efficiencies) and much much more. This fact alone is enough to refute speculative models like those of Davis and Johnson. If their models were true, all kinds of things we take for granted would not work, or would have to be designed very differently, and airliners and ships at sea would be getting lost all the time.

There are deep mysteries to be sure, like "why" does the electron keep spinning.... but once you can understand that the magnetic field itself doesn't take any energy to maintain, then it's a bit easier.  Again, consider the DC solenoid coil. Apply some voltage.... and some energy goes into setting up the field, so the current doesn't just appear instantly at its full value, it takes a bit of time to increase. This is because setting up the field is costly. Once the field is established it doesn't take any more energy to maintain and the current flows unimpeded. When the circuit is interrupted, the energy used to set up the field is returned as the current continues to try to flow in the same direction, making things like contact arcs or big spikes of voltage. Since we weren't around when the electrons started spinning, and we won't be around when they stop..... we don't get to see the energy required to set up the little fields of each spinning electron. We only see the energy needed to knock a bunch of little fields into alignment so that the bulk material has a big enough coherent field to be detected outside.

Now for the Zen: It's all one thing. Charge, motion, field: one thing. One. Motion is relative to a reference frame, one frame's magnetic field is another frame's electric field, charge is conserved.

Wow! Your like a physics teacher to me now,    very much appreciated, thank's
Regards cc

[Dave45]

Outstanding vid

[gravityblock]

Show me one device that is designed _and working_ according to these models of which you speak, that cannot be explained better by the "archaic" field model  that is used every day to make motors, to levitate bullet trains, to guide electron and ion beams to make the very chips your computer uses.....
you cannot.
Explain why an ordinary compass needle , taken to the equator, does not dip toward the center of the planet like Davis's imaginary model shows.
That explanation I'd really like to see.
Show me a mathematical derivation of these models of which you speak, that is also consistent with QED, the most precise and accurate theory of physics that humans have come up with yet. Show me a single violation of the relationships described by Maxwell's equations. You cannot.

The physics .... the real physics.... of the world around you refutes these imaginations of people like Davis, who apparently never used a magnetic compass at sea, and Howard Johnson, who spent his life chasing a futile dream and made lots of simple...Not Overunity.... toys, but never made anything that worked as he dreamed.

How do you explain this macroscopic version of a quantum effect by using conventional field models where the electron must revolve twice to turn itself around once? Hence the so-called spin 1/2.  Please note the difference in how the magnet indicator lines up at the starting position and at 180⁰ from the starting position.  In addition to this, how do you explain the vortex flowing around a stationary magnet in this video titled, "Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery".  Please note, there is no vortex when substituting the magnet with a stationary iron slug, so this highly suggests the magnetic field is responsible for the vortex.  The image below is a snapshot of the Oliver Crane and RQM view of the magnetic field along with the conventional view.

Gravock

[vrand]

In this video series the currently accepted theories of physics and astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the fundamental forces in all matter.

You will be amazed as a magnetic model of the dome at CERN is used to create a 100 mm diameter plasma Sun with a 300 mm diameter equatorial disc of plasma around it!

All the plasma videos are actual footage with no enhancement or manipulation other than speed. In other words, this is real thing. Hard to believe, but it is all true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EPlyiW-xGI

Interesting HV Plasma experiments and theories, thank you for the Youtube link. Looking forward to the "free energy" device based on this theory this summer.
Cheers

[TinselKoala]

@gravock: If you are challenging conventional views it is up to you to explain how your preferred model is better, makes better predictions of known behaviour and predicts new behaviour that the old model does not, and is confirmed by experiment.

How do YOU explain MRI imagers, ion beam lithography, CRTs, electric motors of all kinds, magnetic compasses, magnetising jigs, bubble chambers, auroras,  using any of the "new" models? The behaviour of these systems and many many more are fully explained using the "ordinary" or "archaic" field model. The "archaic" model makes quite accurate mathematical predictions of very complex behaviour and is used all the time by people who actually make new things that work, in contrast to , eg, Howard Johnson.  Why does the compass needle not show the pattern described by Crane, but rather the conventional pattern? Ditto iron filings or other ways of mapping field lines.... all show results that are consistent with Faraday and inconsistent with Crane or Davis or HoJo.

Until someone can use some new model to fully explain all these things which have been engineered by understanding the "archaic" model, and in addition show how the new model predicts behaviour that the old model does not and these predictions are confirmed by experiment.... the "archaic" model is the proper one to use and to believe in.

It is all one, remember, and motion is relative. Currents in fluid media like plasma or liquid electrolytes spiral around magnetic field lines. This is not news; what is shown in the second video you linked is neither surprising, unusual, or unexplained. I've reproduced it myself, wirelessly, in underwater electrolysis systems, and I've photographed spiraling plasmas in several settings. This behaviour is neither predicted nor explained by Davis or HoJo or any other models other than the standard Faraday-Gauss-Maxwell "archaic" model.

You do realise, I hope, that the two videos of the spiralling plasma, highspeed and regular, caused by the PM in the neon mug were shot by me, don't you?  And if you take a look at this picture of a discharge from my TinselKoil you can clearly see the spiralling of the plasma current.