Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[TinselKoala]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRby1Wilv-Q

[tinman]

@tinman

First off in many pages you mention your theory but I have not found where it is located. It might be good after every 5 pages to remind that link cause I have not seen it.

The magnet and coil relationship and the coil to coil relationship are two similar effects with some differences.

Magnet to coil, either the magnet or the coil has to move or a third party magnetic diversion has to move to create a pulse frequency. Something has to move so you need energy to move it.

Coil1 to Coil2, either coil has to move or one of the coils has to pulse or again you can use a third party diversion.

So far all I have read is still stuck on fields, flux and electrons and there in lies the inequity in these type of discussions for me so for me, the title Myths and Misconceptions will never be explored in an objective manner.

In reality, there are two possible causes for the magnetic effect if one is to conduct scientific observation in a totally unbiased or objective manner.

1) Standard magnetic model where a solid magnetic mass produces a field outside its physical confines.
2) Spin Conveyance model where a solid magnetic mass produces a Localized Gravitational Source (LGS).

Because of the pressures of a long standing history of belief in the magnetic field model, anyone in any position of influence able to advance any theory were kept in line with the field model otherwise they would have never reached any level of scientific proficiency hence INFLUENCE to table any second option. I have never read any other options to the magnetic field model, this, despite the fact that all three, field, flux and electron have never been proven to any satisfactory level of logic. Further then that, science then decided to invent the Quantum Atomic construct which is all based on mV or uV levels of measurement that cannot by themselves confirm the sub-atomic construct proposed. But we chew it up every day as real.

The reality of this, either conscious or unconscious decision to neglect the second cause and effect is that science has passed by decades of potential further advancements.

Science basically got sucked into a mono-vision of effects and from that perspective, which we all share today, we can only see a limited number of potential ways to play with our toys.

Let's say a group of boys are in the woods playing war and all they have are small hand held potato guns. Well since everyone is playing with the same weapon, the rules of engagement are limited to target proximity. Now let's say one of the boys saved up his money earned from his newspaper delivery route and one day buys this really sharp high power potato gun. Hmmmmmmmm. Now the same game and the way it is played has changed forever. That's where science should be, looking for more cause and effect features instead of playing the same old same old and getting the same old results.

There is nothing in science today that can either confirm or deny both of the constructs mentioned above. So why is science stuck in door #1? Is it a conscious decision to quash #2. Why after 100s of years is there not a strong movement for door #2. Why if scientists are so smart in the objective observation of nature have we not had two choices, or are they keeping door #2 for themselves or a select group.

When man invented the wheel, did he also invent wheel science? Did they know all the physics involved in a turning wheel? Or, did they just follow a pattern, make the device and use it to the best of their ability to help them in their lives? Did the wheel turn better before they new the physics? No, turns the same 360 degrees. This proves that you do not need to know the exact function for something to work and to be useful and this is our science today. The excuse that our toys work is not an acceptable measure of how exact our understanding is of science.

In North America, people will yell and booo when they are displeased with a hockey player. In Russia they will whistle when they are displeased. Which one is right? Can both exist in the same game? Sure they can.

If you take a magnet and hold it out at arms length and move it from left to right while your eyes follow the magnet, did you follow the field of the magnet or did your eyes just see the magnet. They just see the magnet and no field. So then why if you can do that with your eyes, just follow where the magnet is and not rely on any fancy field to tell you where it is, cannot an Atom do the same thing? After all, are your eyes seeing the object or are the atoms in your eyes seeing the object or telling your brain there is an object?

Science has been and is still stuck on one major aspect of nature that they call "action at a distance". They think that because something like a magnet moves another magnet from 1 inch or more away, thus action at a distance in its simplest form, there has to be field fingers reaching out and pulling on or pushing out the other magnet. There has to be something there "between" the objects that link and bind and hold and steer their orientations and based on that singular presumption, all this science we have today is how it is and our perspective of how our effects work is also solidified or cemented into a strict number of variations. 

Every reason for every effect we have today that is derived by Standard EE can be modeled by door #2 without a field, flux or electrons. Every single one of them can be explained, and more. More because you guys still have no damn clue what happens inside the wire. Oh but that is not important because our tools work so closing our eyes to this one mystery is a small price to pay for all the toys we have today. hahahaha

We already know that some atoms do things other atoms do not do. How the hell is that possible? Why should atoms in everything we make have sound science in the specific ways they work together and when we get to copper in a wire, we resort to a third party field and a fourth party electron. Nature is there hitting us on the head every damn day of our lives yelling out, "look it's the Atom doing all the effects and not a field", but we cannot listen because our mind is stuck in one mode of modus operandi.

If the field we have modeled in our minds existed, there would be so many fields around us that nothing could ever remain stable enough to exist. We cannot fathom that but it is just true.

Deep Brain Excitation is about the most precise use of a pulsed coil as you can get. Brain surgeons now know that if you can get within a few microns of a target area in the brain and give it as low as a 10uA pulse, your finger will start to jitter in tandem with the pulse frequency. So when you put your cell phone to your, does your finger jiggle given that cell phones have a very high level of output enough to make your computer speakers rumble when your phone rings. So why does it not effect your finger movement? Because it is a question of proximity because atoms do not rely on fields but direct close coupled sensing of gravity. That's why our generators have close coupled stators/rotors. Now make that rotor diameter 1 inch smaller you get nothing.

Now I understand perfectly that since people have been swimming in pool #1 for so long, that even considering taking a dip or even just dipping your toe in pool #2 may be asking someone to take a leap into the unknown, since you do not know if the water is hot or cold and if the poll is 10 feet or 100 feet deep, but at least just realizing there in another pool, is a good step forward for people to start thinking that "hey, there may be some other reasons we have not considered". From there, the sky is the limit. It just takes some time to get your thoughts off the ground.

We have managed to spend a huge fortune on CERN to find out what happened in the mS of the big bang. Why not spend a fraction of that to find out what happens in the mS of a magnet approaching a wire. Is it because the final outcome will be too much of a change in our present model? Now, that I wonder about only because I am looking for other reasons to why our OU devices do not work yet.

So @tinman, all this to say that your main question of how the magnet field goes outwards and captures the other magnet and the question of what medium is there between the magnets that does this, well, the answer is so simple, there is nothing required to do that. Only proximity, gravity and atoms that are so much smarter then we give them credit for. After all, if we are so smart, since we are atoms, they are just as smart. 

wattsup

Indeed wattsup.
The Atom is the creator-->Adam-Atom,so darn close.
As for the rest of your post,well some are set in there way's,and some refuse to take!were not sure but! as a definitive answer.

[poynt99]

Not really.  I once conducted an experiment with a superconducting tube (which cost only $60) and once I froze the magnetic flux in it, the magnetic field persisted for hours and showed no indication of diminishing.  Eventually I run out of LN and it thawed.
See below:
http://tinyurl.com/n3udeg3

Well, assuming an ideal source with limitless current capability, what would be the final current in a 1H ideal inductor with an ideal 1V DC supply applied? And how much energy would have been required?

If that doesn't mess with your mind, I don't know what would. 

[verpies]

.

[MarkE]

A bit of a brain teaser

If zero energy is required to maintain the field, why would energy be required to build it?

For the same reason that it takes energy to accelerate a mass, but in the absence of friction none to maintain the mass' velocity.

An ideal inductor implies DC resistance is 0 Ohms. There can be no power dissipation in an element that is purely inductive, and energy is simply power x time.

Of course an ideal inductor is purely hypothetical, but it does mess with our concepts of energy and limits  . And of course it takes energy to energize the ideal inductor , but it also gives back all of that energy when the source is removed.

Yep.