Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

J.Hutchinson effect

Yes, Ive met him once and talked to him twice, he shacked up with some crazy woman and now hes even MORE nuts.


He was also caught faking 2 of his demo videos.


nevertheless, there could be reasons for that obviously.


He doesnt really experiment anymore like he used .........now hes got a ugly "wife" or something and she rules his life

[picowatt]

TA,

I continue to be uncertain as to what you believe happens during the process of magnetization.

You originally stated that during the magnetization process, electrical current was discharged thru the poles of the pre-magnet.  When questioned on this, you either back pedaled, or realized you misspoke, and began instead to talk about induction. This would still seem to indicate that you believe that the magnetization process is more so related to an electrical phenomenon.  As well, you seem to indicate that whatever it is that you believe happens within the pre-magnet during magnetization is related to Faraday's law.   

If you would, please try to explain a bit more regarding what you believe is actually happening within the pre-magnet during the process of magnetization so that it can be better understood.

PW 

[picowatt]

TA,

For clarity, I am posting the following quotes taken from your replies to me wherein you are explaining the process of magnetization as you see it.  Lest you, or the reader, accuse me of any "exclusion fallacy", I encourage you, or the reader to re-read a bit of this thread beginning with reply #444  (July 22 page 30).  I have a few questions regarding what is said by you in the following quotes, and am posting these quotes here so that you can better appreciate my understanding of what it is you are teaching. 

Let me give you a clue AGAIN- 

"magnets" are CREATED by discharging capacitor banks THRU THE (pre-) "POLES" (at which time they are of course "PRE-magnetized [rather pre-dielectrified]" ceramics)



Current is discharged thru the ENTIRE F-ing magnet


Does the word "induction" ring a bell to you?   (not magnetic INDUCTION), but the induction used to CREATE a "magnet".

Magnets are not "MAGNETIZED", thats magnetic induction from a magnet TO a piece of iron IN THE MAG FIELD, for example.  That is magnetic field INDUCTION.
a "magnet" has an enormous dis-equalibrium between the interatomic magneto-dielectric, also as increased by the NeoFeBoron ceramic structure.


All that magnetism IN a NEO is powered by the charge potential increase FROM the discharged electromagnetic coils INTO the entire F-ing Neo-Fe-Boron "pre-magnet".


Current is discharged thru the ENTIRE F-ing magnet, which creates, resultantly this magneto-dielectric structure:


Does the word "induction" ring a bell to you?   (not magnetic INDUCTION), but the induction used to CREATE a "magnet"


Oh hell, look wireless INDUCTION powering a light bulb!!!  how "new"   (wait, no its not).
Please wise the hell up, no offense.
That charge dumps from the banks to the coil  INTO THE "MAGNETS", son,  is what causes the dis-equilibrium and creates that Finger-Breaking  Neo-Magnet (that you have no clue how it works)


I suggest you learn what ELECTRICAL INDUCTION IS


In a magnetizer station, an enormous INDUCTIVE CHARGE IS DUMPED into the pre-"magnet" to create the "magnet"   (of which a portion is retained, resultant with the magneto-dielectric dis-equalibrium of the , now,  "magnet").


Again, suggest you look up the word INDUCTION


THAT IS, if you think you cannot fry bacon wirelessly between two INDUCTION COILS (which you can) I thought you were smarter than that (guess not).


An inductive charge is placed from the cap banks, thru the coils and THRU the "magnet" , of which a portion of the charge is left "permanently" remaining

Just like running a fast river for an instant in the sand, leaving a permanent "mark", in this case, the "mark" is the dis-equilibrium of the magneto-dielectric in and of the (now) "magnet".

Let me WISE YOU THE HECK up (no offense, honestly)  ....
 CONTACT electrification, and INDUCTION electrification are  BOTH #&*@(@(@  ELECTRIFICATION


Dead wrong son.      Brief LARGE AMOUNT OF CURRENT you mean.

You're as clueless as a goddamn lemming.     You dont (still) GET the fucking word  "MAGNETIZE" ,   Magnetization (as implied resultant magnetism in the "magnet")  is the TERMINATION OF ELECTRICITY moron.......... Even a 8th grade book on electricity will tell you that son.


How the FUCK did you think you created a FINGER CRUSHING NEO MAGNET?    Its inductively CHARGED at the dielectric from the Cap banks, to the coils INTO the Magnet.

Let me give you a fucking heads up on the word  "ELECTROMAGNET"........OK,     Its OVERWHELMINGLY ELECTRICAL, with resultant strong magnetic (temporary) charge.


Yes, moron, the magnet is electrically INDUCED BY the ELECTRIC INDUCTION from the ELECTO-magnet.    Wise the ever loving hell up boy.


NOW ask how you create a (very WEAK) permanent magnet with a STRONG magnet?

YOU STROKE IT with the strong magnet and align the dielectricity in a coherent fashion in the steel bar ,etc,...    to create resultant macro-magnetic polarization


Ohhhhhhhh, and WHY IS A MAGNET MADE THIS WAY SO STINKING WEAK IN POWER??    because it was not, IS NOT, HAS NOT been electrified from a HUGE inductive electrical DUMP

So, you're saying you STILL havent learned about wireless touchless induction?

[picowatt]

TA,

In the quotes provided in my previous post, you raise several points.

First, you make a distinction between a weak magnet and a powerful magnet.  You also make a distinction between a magnet created by "magnetic" induction and one created by "electrical" induction.  Conventional thinking would say that the mechanism involved in producing both a weak or a strong magnet are the same.  It makes little sense that there would need to be two different mechanisms involved to accomplish the same task (magnetization) dependent upon whether a weak or strong magnet is desired. 

Where would one draw the line defining a weak magnet and a strong magnet?  If one has a powerful neo focused to a gap and places a much smaller neo, alnico, or creamic pre-magnet into the gap, surely a confuguration could be acheived wherein the pre-magnet is saturated with the resulting new magnet retaining as much magnetic alignment as could be acheived with either this "magnetically" induced method or one using "electrical" induction (i.e., once saturation is acheived, there can be no further increase in the pre-magnet's field irregardless of the method used).  This method, "magnetic induction" as you refer to it, seems to be in line with conventional thinking with regard to how all pre-magnet's are magnetized, i.e., the alignment of magnetic moments within the pre-magnet to an externally applied magnetic field.


Regarding the idea that electrical current is induced into the magnet in your "electrical" induction method for producing powerful magnets, I remain unsure as to how you envision this process.  First, it should be obvious that large capacitors are not used to discharge large currents and voltages DIRECTLY THRU the poles of a pre-magnet.  One would also expect the poles of a magnetizer to insulate or provide a gap in at least one of its pole pieces to prevent the formation of a single turn loop, as would happen when an electrically conductive pre-magnet is placed across the magnetizer's pole pieces.  One can only imagine the poles of the pre-magnet being welded to the poles of the magnetizer, or the plating being blasted from a neo if this were allowed to happen.

As well, consider an electrically non-conductive resin bonded neo or ceramic, how indeed are large currents to pass thru these non-conductive pre-magnets?

You speak of the wireless transfer of electricity and electrical induction as if this is actually the mechanism involved (as opposed to the passing of current directly thru the pre-magnet as originally stated).  Again, the issue of electrically non-conductive magnets arises, as where are these induced currents supposed to be flowing?  Possibly you mean to say that this electrical current is induced directly into the atomic structure of the pre-magnet's atoms, with no macroscopic current flows required within or thru the bulk of the pre-magnet's material.

If the involved mechanism with regard to magnetizing a pre-magnet were indeed due to electrical induction, then as per Faraday, the degree with which we can magnetize the pre-magnet should also be a function of the RATE of change of the magnetizer's field.

For example, let's say we have an electromagnet (or any magnet actually) so arranged that it can apply a 100,000 oersted field to pre-magnet.  Based on "magnetic induction" as you call it, and conventional thinking, the largest field that can be produced in the pre-magnet (and ultimately retained thereby) is only a function of the maximum strength of the field produced by the magnetizing magnet.  That is, the rate at which the magnetizing field is applied has no bearing on the strength achieved in the new magnet.

If instead, we consider instead your claim of electrical induction as being the involved mechanism, one would expect that not only the maximum field strength applied, but as well, the RATE at which that field is applied to determine the strength of the new magnet produced (as per Faraday).  In the example above, if we consider "electrical induction" as the magnetizing mechanism, applying the power to the electromagnet in a short, fast pulse would produce a more powerful magnet than would slowly ramping up and down the voltage to the electromagnet, irregardless of achieving an identical peak field strength in both cases.  If this is indeed your thinking, that is an experimentally testable hypothesis and, most likely, the results to same are likely already known.

Back in the days of AlNiCo, it was common on assembly lines to use a conveyer system to pass the alnico pre-magnet's between the poles of a huge u-shaped electromagnet fed by continuous DC.  As well, even today, eddy currents induced into electrically conductive pre-magnets by fast pulses are both problematic and desirable to avoid.  The eddy currents produce fields in opposition to the magnetizing field (limiting achievable strength) and as well produce undesired heating within the pre-magnet.  Also, with respect to sintered NdFeB magnets, the nickel, or nickel over copper plating, typically applied to their exterior is most certainly a far better conductor than the sintered matrix.  Any electrical current induced in these magnets would most likely be concentrated in the plating, causing significant temperature rise there (perhaps to the point of damaging the plating).  Because of this, even in pulsed magnetizers, the rate of change must be controlled to some degree to prevent overly powerful eddy currents and heating (at least with electrically conductive pre-magnets).


With all of the above said, I have difficulty believing that the magnetization process is primarily electrical in nature (other than Lorenz forces acting within the pre-magnet against the applied field).

However, I will try to contact an engineer this week that should be able to answer any question regarding magnetization strength being a function of rate of change of the magnetizer's field (or the rate at which the pre-magnet is made to advance towards, or recede from, the poles of a fixed magnetizer field).  Possibly this does have an effect which would support your contentions.  However, if only the peak field strength achieved is the determinant, and not the rate, I would say this to be in further support of conventional thinking.

PW

[TinselKoala]

Well, that's a remarkable collection, picowatt! I think the readers will get the full picture of what Kenny-boy believes about magnetizing bulk material from that, and also the nature of his arguments in support of his beliefs.

But remember how he couldn't provide an actual reference citation way back then when I first challenged him to do so?

Here he makes another statement:

Magnetization (as implied resultant magnetism in the "magnet")  is the TERMINATION OF ELECTRICITY moron.......... Even a 8th grade book on electricity will tell you that son.

(sic)

I want to see an actual reference that supports THIS statement. Where is a reference that shows that an 8th grade book on electricity tells you that "Magnetization is the TERMINATION OF ELECTRICITY?" Moron?

Graduated college early did he? I guess he missed the part where students are taught how to cite references, according to one of several different publication and editorial standards.