Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[TheoriaApophasis]

I think the toy tire on a stick shows what's happening really well.
I gave up trying to get motion out of magnets when I was eight.
Nobody's succeeded yet as far as I can see.
                     John.

Nope, it proves he doesnt know SHIT


A: SEE PIC BELOW,   any object at the angle of the lens will ROLL IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS MOVEMENT


B:  the disk magnet or steel disk will PRECESS OPPOSITE to the movement of the direction   (why steel also?  still in magnetic induction)



FIELDS dont see physical movement, fields "see" fields,.......the closest edges of both magnets or magnet and disk will chase each other at lowest pressure mediation for voidance (what you call attraction).


Tinsel is an Aussie wanka' a  tossa'  (in their language)       hes an intellectual BOOB and SLOB


He keeps mentioning BEER for some reason, I guess hes a drunkard also...... ( I dont drink)


See the magnet move OPPOSITE the direction of movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlMYTL_6hA0

I think the toy tire on a stick shows what's happening really well.

NOPE 
It SHOWS movement in the SAME DIRECTION of the sticks movement


HIGH TECH:   wheel on a stick

[tinman]

Your drawing pretty much captures the true state of affairs although your description is a bit off. This phenomenon actually has nothing to do with magnetism per se, the magnetism is just what pulls the items together and makes the point pivot contact. The device will work just fine even with only one magnet and a smooth flat piece of steel. The rotation arises because of the force couple: the point of contact provides a pivot and a frictional drag that combines with the off-center pull to produce a rotation.

This is a True Experiment, not a demonstration. Note how the DUT responds as the input parameters are varied through a rationally chosen parameter space, testing a couple of hypotheses. Note also that the top item is not a metallic magnet at all. The lens is held level. Note how the upper object's behaviour changes when it is at the top of the lens and all the various force vectors align: there is no spinning couple at that location, whereas when the upper object is down on the slope of the lens, these vectors no longer align and a rotational torque develops as the object is dragged along the surface by the lower magnet. The direction of spin is completely predicted by the vectors and the resulting couple, and has nothing to do with magnet polarity or magnetism at all. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SeVWSO_wpg

@TK
This is not my video TK,another member posted it on another thread here-which i cant find,because it has disappeared of the bottom of the list.

[TinselKoala]

@TK
This is not my video TK,another member posted it on another thread here-which i cant find,because it has disappeared of the bottom of the list.

Huh? The video linked in your posted quote is _my_ video, isn't it?

Notice that it also directly refutes the claims about direction made by the Greatest Buddhist Scientist above. The direction of rotation is determined by the force couple. In the case of the rolling wheel, it is being pulled along by the center of rotation and lagged by the contact of the wheel with the substrate. In the case of the magnet it is being lagged behind by the point of contact: the center of rotation. The couple predicts exactly the direction of rotation for both cases.

Apparently  his observation skills aren't all that, after all. And his mind is sooo oooppen it appears to have run out his ears and gotten all over his chest.  Or is that some kind of tattoo?

(Is anyone... besides me that is... counting the times he's mentioned his dead wife in order to get some kind of gain for himself? Add one more to the count.)

And his comment about "beer" and not drinking is a hoot. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, that is demonstrated amply by the Greatest Buddhist Scientist. Never even heard of Beer and Johnston. Must have been too busy translating Sanskrit pornography or something.
http://www.slideshare.net/akashsolanki/vector-mechanics-by-beer-johnston

[minnie]

University of Sheffield U.K. did work on developing a magnetic gearbox
which is on the lines of Koala's description.
            John.

[d3x0r]

re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtoaqj_kcp4 ( VIDEO 45 Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism. FUNDAMENTALS PART 8 )


pole 1 is cw, pole 2 (looking at opposite side is ccw, but looking at if from the same side as pole 1 will still be cw); therefore 2 poles coming together are in the same direction; and is 100% backwards from what you're saying.  Looking at it from the top with a thing inbetween the lines will be in the same direction... flip it over and it's reversed.  Therefore when 2 is attracting to 1, they are in the same direction....  remember a thing rotating at one end looks cw, the other end looks ccw... so both ends are spinning the same direction, and themselves are not hypotrochoidal... and again brining two bodies spinining in the same direction (a stack of pole1-pole2 to pole-pole2 )  they are all spinining in the same direction....

I see where the confusion comes from...
the double-inversion of turning around one side and mating it to the other side.
Notice the helic planes in the first set are all in the same direction... but on the right side when you look at both sides at once they appear to be opposing ccw and cw at the mating point.... not sure how to describe why that's an error...