Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[MileHigh]

Kenny:

But my posting was about the spinning magnet and broken ring magnet.

I notice how for a while now you ignore my main points when I make an occasional posting here.  That's very telling.

Dollard is a flake as far as I am concerned.  Tesla was quite brilliant, but I believe that he never managed to understand the mathematical modeling behind his research.  So he could visualize and create, but he could never take it to the next level.  His body of knowledge is appreciated and has been absorbed into more modern and more advanced ways of doing things.  Tesla was just human, and like any person he had his limitations.

I am strongly suspecting that "dielectricity" was a very early term that was coined because researchers noticed two fields, the electric field and the magnetic field.  They acknowledged that current flow created a magnetic field.  But they also saw that a magnetic field could be generated with no apparent current flow.  The term "dielectric" implies the prevention of current flow.   Hence, just my pet theory mind you, that since they observed a magnetic field with no apparent current flow, then a kind of "dielectricity" was responsible for one of the observable magnetic fields and "electricity" was responsible for the electric fields.

Now wouldn't that be funny:  Kenny going crazy over "dielectricity" because he read some 19th century texts that were written before Rutherford figured out the basic structure of the atom.  After all, without understanding the basic structure of the atom, it's very confusing to observe a magnetic field with no apparent source.  Since the source appears to emanate from something with no current flow, it must be a "dielectric" source.

If my theory is true, that would be your ultimate "Roseanne Roseannadanna" moment, but I know that you are too young to get the joke, son.

MileHigh

[TheoriaApophasis]

Re spinning magnet on a convex surface...
if the inner magnet was on a more concave surface, then the rotation would be reversed (compared to previous demos, cw motion of drive magnet will cause cw rotation).
if the curve was exactly the same then it would slide, other than when the driving magnet becomes skewed from the center... then if it's more towards the center, then the rotation will be reversed (drive cw, rotation cw), if it's towards the outside, the rotation will be as has been demonstrated on a convex lens so far (drive cw, rotation ccw)

I just tried that experiment, and NO, doesnt work as you say.


works the same as base magnet FLAT, and top magnet on concave side

[TheoriaApophasis]

Dollard is a flake as far as I am concerned.
MileHigh

They said the same about Tesla................hes done a MOUNTAIN of work,  his new book coming out is TITANIC,  mostly equations.

"THE WISE LOVE HIM FOR THE SAME REASONS THE FOOLS HATE HIM" - PROCLUS


proving my point, you lost that one (same as always)

I am strongly suspecting that "dielectricity" was a very early term that was coined because researchers noticed two fields, the electric field and the magnetic field.  They acknowledged that current flow created a magnetic field.  But they also saw that a magnetic field could be generated with no apparent current flow.  The term "dielectric" implies the prevention of current flow.   Hence, just my pet theory mind you, that since they observed a magnetic field with no apparent current flow, then a kind of "dielectricity" was responsible for one of the observable magnetic fields and "electricity" was responsible for the electric fields.

You have no idea what dielectricity is.

what "no current flow"??  DUMMY,  all matter is FULL of magneto-dielectricity.

The notion that an atom is "99.99999999%  empty" is the BIGGEST FUCKING LIE of  "physics" that exist       

[MileHigh]

what "no current flow"??  DUMMY

That's where you are broadcasting out to the world that you have a psychological disorder.  You seemingly can't make a distinction between a speculation that I am making about someone else and my own thoughts.  Or else, you are fully aware of the distinction but you make a posting like that anyway because in a quasi psychopathic way you believe the spin is more important then the logic of the argument and your own credibility.

Either way, it does not bode well in terms of your mental health.

[picowatt]

TA,

I remain confused as to what you believe occurs when an electrical magnetizer (or PM) is used to "magnetize" (align) a pre-magnet.

I reread several of the earliest pages of this thread.  Early on, in several posts, you made the following statements:

Do you even know how a "magnet" is created?   dumped charged capacitor banks spin up in geometric magneto-dielectric incommensurability the magnetic and dielectric fields to MAKE the specific geometry.
...

However only a magnetically induced object is a genuine "magnet",   what you and others call a "magnet" is a dielectric object.
...

As well, as I have previously posted, you have made these comments:

        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?

In my earlier posts, I have already discussed the error in thinking, or at least stating, that a magnetizer discharges large currents directly thru the poles of a pre-magnet.  Apparently in agreement with that, you then spoke of electrical induction, as if that is what you actually meant to say (and which you also supported by posting the images of a wireless transmission system).  I postulated that if electrical current induced into the pre-magnet via induction was the actual mechanism utilized by a magnetizer, that it would seem logical to expect that the RATE at which the magnetizer's field was applied should affect the strength of the field achieved in the pre-magnet, with a faster rise/fall time producing a stronger field (i.e., dV/dt).

As I said I would, I spoke with a magnetizer engineer, and as I suspected, only the peak field strength achieved by the magnetizer, not the rate at which the magnetizer's field is applied, determines the field strength produced in a pre-magnet.  In fact, if the rate of change of the magnetizer's is too fast, there are undesirable eddy currents induced into electrically conducting pre-magnets, and the magnetic field that these undesirable eddy currents produce is in opposition to the magnetizer's field, which undesirably limits the field strength achieved in the pre-magnet.  Because of this, the rate of change of the magnetizer's field must be slowed to reduce these effects.  This is contrary to what one would expect if electrical induction of current into a magnet were the mechanism utilized by a magnetizer.  This apparently rules out electrical induction as the mechanism involved in "magnetizing" a pre-magnet.

One of the points I mentioned regarding the engineer I contacted is below, followed by your response:
[Quote from: picowatt on August 06, 2014, 12:55:12 AM]

    7. The source of the magnetic field used as the source of the magnetizer field is unimportant.  For a given applied field strength, that field strength is identical irregardless of whether it comes from an electromagnet or PM (although their are practical considerations regarding the use of a PM as its field cannot be turned off). 

[/quote response from TA]

I SAID EXACTLY THAT MORON........ However try to get a NEO to hold its field by mere PM induction!!!!!!!!!  hahahah!!!!!

[/quote]

Throughout this thread you have maintained a distinction between a "real" magnet made using another magnet (with what you referred to as "magnetic induction") and a magnet made via some electrical discharge mechanism.  With regard to the quote from my previous posting and your reply immediately above, you seem to now be agreeing that the source of the magnetic field (PM or EM) used to align the domains of a pre-magnet is unimportant, and that only the peak field strength achieved is important. 

This also seems to eliminate the distinction you have repeatedly made between a magnet made using another magnet, and one created using an electrical means.  That is to say, all magnets are created equal.

If you would, please clarify your position on this.

Are we now in agreement that irregardless of whether a PM, EM or "cap discharge" into an EM is used, all magnets are created by the same mechanism, i.e., alignment?

PW