Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[poynt99]

You're coming on a little strong don't you think Marco? Chill out man. 

I've not read much of Steinmetz, but yes it is good info.

[Qwert]

Snapped

You are all WRONG... 

I see nothing contradictory or wrong in our discussion comparing Steinmetz lectures.

[TinselKoala]

Well, i got some news for yall.

You are all WRONG...  and especially that tinsel twat know it all.

Go ahead, refute anything I've said, with checkable outside references, facts, or demonstrations of your own. Or continue to insult me with empty insults like the ignorant troll you are. Your choice.

Beginning to understand?? haha give me a break !! your not even close to beginning

Forget everything and i do mean everything you believe and start over.
And don't be fooled by know it all's they know nothing, they think they do but in reality they know nothing.

And yet, we "know it alls" (who don't actually pretend to know it "all" like you do) are able to use our "nothing" knowledge to engineer, build stuff, predict how it will work and see our predictions validated by experiment. Our knowledge allows us to observe, describe, control, and predict reality in a coherent, universally understood manner. Go ahead, forget Ohm's Law and Maxwell's Equations and start over. When you can use YOUR idea of magnetism to design and build a CRT that can display an image... and that is somehow different than the ones we "know it alls" have designed... be sure to let me know. But I'm not going to hold my breath, waiting for you to put your words into actions, because I know that you cannot.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz could be a good start.
If you really want some answers, Absorb his works, especially the dielectric part and the fibrous part and the part about reflection and once you understand that you will have no more questions, and you can immediately pick out those few that really gained some understanding.
Also it makes things a lot more logical in stead of discussing and speculation combined with learned false assumptions.

Go ahead, Turbo, educate us. Show us something that Steinmetz predicted that isn't completely covered by the standard modern theory of quantum electrodynamics. Be sure to include your YouTube video of the apparatus, and explain fully why the modern description of events isn't adequate or is wrong.

[TinselKoala]

Re the video "the kick".... what is the inductance of 25 cm of #20 solid copper wire? 

By saying "there is no coil" the presenter is implying that what is shown doesn't depend on the inductance of the wire. Is that true, or not? Is it at all possible that there is some capacitive coupling across the insulation of the wire, to his hand?

[MileHigh]

Newton II:

So, when a moving negative charge produces magnetic field, a
     moving positive charge should produce anti-magnetic field.  But it just produces a magnetic field in opposite direction corresponding to
     the negative charge flow.

You are thinking things through.  To me it means you are showing your 'old' way of thinking and then going to the next step.  For starters you show what we can call "crazy logic" with nothing to back it up.  There is no such thing as an "anti-magnetic field," and I am pretty sure that you know that.  So why even say it?  It's akin to making a statement like this, "The North pole is very cold so the opposite South pole must be very hot."  Then you recover because you are fully aware of the right-hand rule.  The right-hand rule is REALITY.  I think it's important for people to resist the irrational urge to accept fake concepts and ideas that people put forward just because they 'sound cool.'  These are important principles in science and how to govern your thinking processes.  The formula for the magnetic field at a given point in space relative to a moving point charge is is attached to this posting.  It's important for people to realize that this formula applies to a point anywhere in ALL SPACE, the Universe.  It's absolutely real and verifiable and people need to understand this.  We have the ability to translate observed reality into a mathematical formula.  That's why we can design bridges and skyscrapers.

Now think about a sphere fixed with  generator coils which can receive the magnetic flux suitably when magnetic  field is produced on
   the  sphere. Charge the sphere to the full with any type of charge, fix it to a speed motor or pulse motor which developes high speed
   with negligible input energy on 'no load'.

   When you start the motor, the charged sphere rotates and developes magnetic field which varies from zero to maximum.  If you switch
   off the motor and halt the sphere, magnetic field collapses from maximum to zero. In both cases  the generator coils fixed to the sphere
   generate electricity as per induction rules.    A huge magnetic field rising and collapsing, will generate considerable energy in the coils. At 
   the same time the rotating sphere will not experience any  slowing down force from the generator coils because these coils are fixed on
   the sphere and will be  rotating with sphere.

   Hence there will be no load on motor even if you apply electrical load on coils.

   So, you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing lenz's slowing down force.

Not a chance in the world will you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing Lenz drag. 

The first thing that you have to do if you want to explore this further is make a physical diagram of what you are talking about and an equivalent schematic diagram.  I read your description and it is ambiguous and lacking in sufficient detail.  That's a classic issue on the forums, talking about a circuit with no schematic, no discussing of the timing of the system, no discussing of the input and output, etc.  It simply doesn't work like that in real life.  If you are up to the challenge then great, or we can just forget about it.  It's your choice.

MileHigh