Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[MarkE]

My depiction is correct in regards to the useful magnetic field. This i have said time and time again.

Both Itsu and AC have shown this to be true with your very own test.
Like i said before Mark,you are including your !field of dreams! into the picture.

Tinman one does not get to redefine scientific terms to suit oneself.   The lines that you have drawn do not correspond to convention for depicting magnetic flux.  You have drawn something that means something to you in terms of flux density.  Lines are representations of the quantity of magnetic flux passing through a cross section that slices into the page on which the lines are drawn.  Closer lines correspond to higher flux density in the representation. 

[MarkE]

I believe TK said in one/both videos that his little magnets were N52, which is very strong.  I have mostly N40 (or thereabouts) here and they are incredibly strong.  I was surprised to see that they did not mess with his meter.

Bill

That would explain his perpendicular results.

[TinselKoala]

Ok,  wide part of the magnet stack scanned, sensor fixed from above, sliding the magnet stack underneath it (1cm)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5WxjH8IqM&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

Nicely done, and perfectly in agreement with the _standard picture_ of the magnetic field lines. If you could overlay the standard image of the field lines, you'd see that your sensor readings are perfectly in accord with the picture in both direction and magnitude.

The slight asymmetry you detect, where the "dip" is at minimum value not exactly in the center of the stack, is probably due to the slight asymmetry in the Hall sensor itself. If you rotate the sensor 180 degrees you will probably find that the minimum (or maximum) will follow the rotation and appear on the other side of the actual center of the magnet stack, proving that it is the Hall sensor and not the field that is "offcenter".  The image below is from the Data Sheet for the sensor I am using, and you can see that the sensor's response is slightly asymmetric wrt the direction of flux through the plane of the sensor. Since this is a characteristic of Hall sensors in general, it probably is true for yours as well.

What is the part number of your sensor, and can you provide a Data Sheet for us to look at?

[tinman]

Tinman one does not get to redefine scientific terms to suit oneself.   The lines that you have drawn do not correspond to convention for depicting magnetic flux.  You have drawn something that means something to you in terms of flux density.  Lines are representations of the quantity of magnetic flux passing through a cross section that slices into the page on which the lines are drawn.  Closer lines correspond to higher flux density in the representation.

I am sorry that i dont conform to your science.
I have drawn the shape of the effective magnetic fields-the definitive fields.Your unified field theory is just more junk science that leads people up the garden path,and confuses the hell out of them. Your fancy terms mean nothing to me,as i am after physical realities. You(nor anyone else) cant even tell us what is suppose to be flowing from north to south-depicted on the pretty drawings by arrow's. These are man made confab's-nothing more. This direction of flow as shown by the arrows on the magnetic field drawings dose not exist,nor do field lines. North and south is mans way of depicting a difference/an opposite,and these opposites merge at the center of the dipole,one dose NOT contine to dominate from one end of a magnet to the other.
The effective fields ARE in the shape of a figure 8/peanut. All closed systems have a minimum of two loop's-not one.

[TinselKoala]

TK's parallel facing tests agree with:  theory Itus's tests and my own.  Itsu's perpendicular tests agree with theory and my own experiments with ceramic and ferrite magnets.
TK's perpendicular facing tests with nearly uniform readings may have saturated the sensor amplifier.  That would have been particularly likely if his magnets are very strong.

Yes, and Itsu's and my _data_ also agree with the _data_ that allcanadian has posted. The trouble is with AC's interpretation of his data, I think.

Yes, the sensor is saturated near the poles and is out of its linear response range which is only rated as between +/- 900 Gauss, that is, 900 Gauss in either direction. The linearity may be somewhat off during the central portion of the scan, but I don't think it is saturated there, because it definitely responds to changes in orientation and lateral position.