Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[ramset]

Mark E




Quote
And another man of straw is slain.
-------------------------------------------

Nahh
Around here we call that shooting yourself in the foot.....

[MarkE]

Mark E




Quote
And another man of straw is slain.
-------------------------------------------

Nahh
Around here we call that shooting yourself in the foot.....

You created the straw man and you slayed that great demon.  Now if only you could counter MH's actual argument ...

[wattsup]

@MH

Just go back and really read my post. Put your EE brain on pause (if you can), open your brain section that is entitled "New perspective", then put the read there, muddle it over and come back with some real objections.

Real objections, based on logic, or based on the illogic of the logic.

Mark gave me one logical objection, gold, great, he is right, I was wrong cause I should have said silver. Hope the world does not fall apart for that.

Oh and what you are so certain of today, in many instances began as you say as "whakadoo" science yesterday. So don't be so pompous about the origins of intelligence. When I embarked on this adventure of OU, I did not expect being where I am today, I did not expect to find so many discrepancies at every damn turn, where we always wind up with some level of "that's the way it is, accept it" and Marks ultimate "where's the evidence".

You know that evidence can be used for you or against you. So I will be using the already available evidence against itself. hahahaha I don't have to invent invisible fields, counterspaces and dielectrics to get my point across. The evidence is already out there in small lines of science. Unnoticed observations, they are all over the place. Once you get into this long enough you start to develop a second sense.

Your problem has always been the same thing. You are trying to grasp concepts that you have never spent a second on the bench working towards. You may have spent years and years building widgets for company A, B and C. But you have never spent one minute working on OU, so how do you expect to fully understand what I am saying in my posts. Of course they are whakadoo to you. But luckily I never post for you or @MarkEs. I only post for OUers and in the OU world, the great silent majority that never posts here, we understand things differently. We learn to read between the lines, our lines, others lines as well as Standard EE lines.

Case in point: @tinman posts something and all of a sudden, a term used in not right and pages go by for what? I understood him perfectly when you consider the context. But you guys just took him to the cleaners on that, so why? You will not understand certain things but you are quick to repost your opinions on every other post and in most thread on this forum. Why?

Examples of small evidence not too far away: Taken here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Quote
When subjected to external forces, like electrical fields, the shape of an atom may deviate from spherical symmetry. The deformation depends on the field magnitude and the orbital type of outer shell electrons, as shown by group-theoretical considerations. Aspherical deviations might be elicited for instance in crystals, where large crystal-electrical fields may occur at low-symmetry lattice sites. Significant ellipsoidal deformations have recently been shown to occur for sulfur ions [66] and chalcogen ions [67] in pyrite-type compounds.
Unquote

Quote
Magnetic moment
Main articles: Electron magnetic dipole moment and Nuclear magnetic moment

Elementary particles possess an intrinsic quantum mechanical property known as spin. This is analogous to the angular momentum of an object that is spinning around its center of mass, although strictly speaking these particles are believed to be point-like and cannot be said to be rotating. Spin is measured in units of the reduced Planck constant (ħ), with electrons, protons and neutrons all having spin ½ ħ, or "spin-½". In an atom, electrons in motion around the nucleus possess orbital angular momentum in addition to their spin, while the nucleus itself possesses angular momentum due to its nuclear spin.[74]

The magnetic field produced by an atom—its magnetic moment—is determined by these various forms of angular momentum, just as a rotating charged object classically produces a magnetic field. However, the most dominant contribution comes from electron spin. Due to the nature of electrons to obey the Pauli exclusion principle, in which no two electrons may be found in the same quantum state, bound electrons pair up with each other, with one member of each pair in a spin up state and the other in the opposite, spin down state. Thus these spins cancel each other out, reducing the total magnetic dipole moment to zero in some atoms with even number of electrons.[75]

In ferromagnetic elements such as iron, cobalt and nickel, an odd number of electrons leads to an unpaired electron and a net overall magnetic moment. The orbitals of neighboring atoms overlap and a lower energy state is achieved when the spins of unpaired electrons are aligned with each other, a spontaneous process known as an exchange interaction. When the magnetic moments of ferromagnetic atoms are lined up, the material can produce a measurable macroscopic field. Paramagnetic materials have atoms with magnetic moments that line up in random directions when no magnetic field is present, but the magnetic moments of the individual atoms line up in the presence of a field.[75][76]

The nucleus of an atom will have no spin when it has even numbers of both neutrons and protons, but for other cases of odd numbers, the nucleus may have a spin. Normally nuclei with spin are aligned in random directions because of thermal equilibrium. However, for certain elements (such as xenon-129) it is possible to polarize a significant proportion of the nuclear spin states so that they are aligned in the same direction—a condition called hyperpolarization. This has important applications in magnetic resonance imaging.[77][78]
Unquote

So my friend, if you can muddle through this you will realize that the spin is already there. They just did not want to expand on this in terms of our everyday live effects. Because it's easier to think for 2000 some years that a field having zero properties is responsible for our effects via electron movement through a wire, instead of trying to explain that if one atom can spin (what I call the 6Ss, Stay, Show, Sway, Swing, Spin and Shoot) which are all attributes of the atom, they all can spin. There is so much more like this man. The only thing I did was add Conveyance which they decided to neglect since they already had a field and electron to do the energy conveyance in their particular model. Big mistake just cost us 200 years of neglecting the atomic attributes.

Copper having 29 protons and 35 neutrons is our prime candidate for spin. Where there is spin, there is cancellation potential and where you want OU, you need to lower that cancellation potential and that can only be done by topology right now because I cannot make my own copper wire, nor my own magnets.

Like I said to advance in OU research, you need to touch on many disciplines.

But there is much much more. hehehe

wattsup

[shylo]

It's amazing  how many threads get derailed.
Your all our own worst enemy.

[MarkE]

@MH

Just go back and really read my post. Put your EE brain on pause (if you can), open your brain section that is entitled "New perspective", then put the read there, muddle it over and come back with some real objections.

Real objections, based on logic, or based on the illogic of the logic.

Mark gave me one logical objection, gold, great, he is right, I was wrong cause I should have said silver. Hope the world does not fall apart for that.

That entire post of yours was riddled with false and fantastical assertions.  Silver is only about 6% more conductive than copper. So even if you substitute silver for gold in your tome, your assertion that the conductivity of copper versus gold or silver making a big difference in the magnetic characteristics is nonsense.  Untarnished silver has a slightly thinner skin depth than unoxidized copper at any given frequency.  All the clap trap about defective atoms you offered up is just so much nonsense.

Oh and what you are so certain of today, in many instances began as you say as "whakadoo" science yesterday. So don't be so pompous about the origins of intelligence. When I embarked on this adventure of OU, I did not expect being where I am today, I did not expect to find so many discrepancies at every damn turn, where we always wind up with some level of "that's the way it is, accept it" and Marks ultimate "where's the evidence".

Really?  Then kindly cite examples of where you have found a significant advance over electrodynamic theory from the time that you started to "where you are today".

You know that evidence can be used for you or against you. So I will be using the already available evidence against itself. hahahaha I don't have to invent invisible fields, counterspaces and dielectrics to get my point across. The evidence is already out there in small lines of science. Unnoticed observations, they are all over the place. Once you get into this long enough you start to develop a second sense.

That's all fine and well to say, but until you actually pull something fro behind that curtain it is all just so many words.

Your problem has always been the same thing. You are trying to grasp concepts that you have never spent a second on the bench working towards. You may have spent years and years building widgets for company A, B and C. But you have never spent one minute working on OU, so how do you expect to fully understand what I am saying in my posts. Of course they are whakadoo to you. But luckily I never post for you or @MarkEs. I only post for OUers and in the OU world, the great silent majority that never posts here, we understand things differently. We learn to read between the lines, our lines, others lines as well as Standard EE lines.

Again that is all fine and well but without reliable evidence it is little more than story telling in the church of the invisible pink unicorn.

Case in point: @tinman posts something and all of a sudden, a term used in not right and pages go by for what? I understood him perfectly when you consider the context. But you guys just took him to the cleaners on that, so why?

When tinman says something that is ambiguous or wrong, I for one ask him what he really means.  I want to understand his actual intent and not pretend to read his mind, or otherwise assume something that he did not mean.

You will not understand certain things but you are quick to repost your opinions on every other post and in most thread on this forum. Why?

Examples of small evidence not too far away: Taken here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Quote
When subjected to external forces, like electrical fields, the shape of an atom may deviate from spherical symmetry. The deformation depends on the field magnitude and the orbital type of outer shell electrons, as shown by group-theoretical considerations. Aspherical deviations might be elicited for instance in crystals, where large crystal-electrical fields may occur at low-symmetry lattice sites. Significant ellipsoidal deformations have recently been shown to occur for sulfur ions [66] and chalcogen ions [67] in pyrite-type compounds.
Unquote

Quote
Magnetic moment
Main articles: Electron magnetic dipole moment and Nuclear magnetic moment

Elementary particles possess an intrinsic quantum mechanical property known as spin. This is analogous to the angular momentum of an object that is spinning around its center of mass, although strictly speaking these particles are believed to be point-like and cannot be said to be rotating. Spin is measured in units of the reduced Planck constant (ħ), with electrons, protons and neutrons all having spin ½ ħ, or "spin-½". In an atom, electrons in motion around the nucleus possess orbital angular momentum in addition to their spin, while the nucleus itself possesses angular momentum due to its nuclear spin.[74]

The magnetic field produced by an atom—its magnetic moment—is determined by these various forms of angular momentum, just as a rotating charged object classically produces a magnetic field. However, the most dominant contribution comes from electron spin. Due to the nature of electrons to obey the Pauli exclusion principle, in which no two electrons may be found in the same quantum state, bound electrons pair up with each other, with one member of each pair in a spin up state and the other in the opposite, spin down state. Thus these spins cancel each other out, reducing the total magnetic dipole moment to zero in some atoms with even number of electrons.[75]

In ferromagnetic elements such as iron, cobalt and nickel, an odd number of electrons leads to an unpaired electron and a net overall magnetic moment. The orbitals of neighboring atoms overlap and a lower energy state is achieved when the spins of unpaired electrons are aligned with each other, a spontaneous process known as an exchange interaction. When the magnetic moments of ferromagnetic atoms are lined up, the material can produce a measurable macroscopic field. Paramagnetic materials have atoms with magnetic moments that line up in random directions when no magnetic field is present, but the magnetic moments of the individual atoms line up in the presence of a field.[75][76]

The nucleus of an atom will have no spin when it has even numbers of both neutrons and protons, but for other cases of odd numbers, the nucleus may have a spin. Normally nuclei with spin are aligned in random directions because of thermal equilibrium. However, for certain elements (such as xenon-129) it is possible to polarize a significant proportion of the nuclear spin states so that they are aligned in the same direction—a condition called hyperpolarization. This has important applications in magnetic resonance imaging.[77][78]
Unquote

So my friend, if you can muddle through this you will realize that the spin is already there.

When did MH say that spin "isn't there"?

They just did not want to expand on this in terms of our everyday live effects. Because it's easier to think for 2000 some years that a field having zero properties is responsible for our effects via electron movement through a wire, instead of trying to explain that if one atom can spin (what I call the 6Ss, Stay, Show, Sway, Swing, Spin and Shoot) which are all attributes of the atom, they all can spin. There is so much more like this man. The only thing I did was add Conveyance which they decided to neglect since they already had a field and electron to do the energy conveyance in their particular model. Big mistake just cost us 200 years of neglecting the atomic attributes.

In all that gobbledygook are you trying to claim that you have developed a superior atomic model, and/or a superior electrodynamic model?

Copper having 29 protons and 35 neutrons is our prime candidate for spin.

Yet copper has a permeability so close to 1.0 that for almost all purposes it is treated as 1.0.

Where there is spin, there is cancellation potential and where you want OU, you need to lower that cancellation potential and that can only be done by topology right now because I cannot make my own copper wire, nor my own magnets.

Like I said to advance in OU research, you need to touch on many disciplines.

But there is much much more. hehehe

wattsup

Hitting the happy gas does not lead out discovery.