Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[MarkE]

Im working on that, but my theory seems to make sense moreso than the ! I dont know! theory.
Think about it-opposite charges attract. A negative charge has a potential to 0, and positive charges have a potential to 0--both attract materials with a 0 potential, like charges repell, and unlike charges attract. Once we know what these charged particles are, then were home free.

Well a lot of people have thought about it for centuries, documented their ideas and performed experiments to test those ideas.  And that's what's got us to where we are now.  It hardly makes where we are the end all, but it does represent a lot of careful thought and verified observation.

Back to the idea of a magnetic particle flow if you will:  If these particles have mass and/or momentum ( calculus lets us have momentum with essentially zero mass ), I wonder how that could work seeing as how the flow at whatever the velocity is doesn't seem to be detectable in things that have low permeability, like plastic or wood.  This "magnetic wind" therefore doesn't seem to have ordinary properties of mass or momentum.  It seems to "blow harder" on certain materials.  One of the characteristics of this "magnetic wind" is that it always seems to circulate.  We never seem to see it blow from one point spreading in all directions the way the "electric wind" from charged things do.

[MarkE]

@MarkE,

The output from the bi-toroid transformer would need to be rectified to DC, then inverted back to AC at 60 Hertz. Suppose the circuit power from the transformer is insufficient for this re-conversion? What does that have to do with the infinite efficiency of the transformer?

You've got the cart squarely before the horse.  TH has not shown any particular efficiency because he has not performed accurate power tests.  If you have a pair of garden variety 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 digit DMMs  you can do the following experiment with ordinary resistors and a 9V battery or bench power supply set to 10V:

Get a 100K Ohm resistor and a couple of 1 Ohm resistors and a switch. 
Connect the 100k ohm resistor to a banana plug.
Connect both of the 1 Ohm resistors in parallel to the free end of the 100K Ohm resistor. 
Connect one of the resistors to negative side of the battery/power supply directly, and the second resistor through the switch.

Connect the banana plug end of the 100K Ohm resistor into the COM terminal a DMM set up to measure current on a 2mA scale or if the meter supports it, a 200uA scale.  Connect the mA input terminal of the meter to the positive side of the battery/power supply.

Turn the toggle switch wired to the second 1 Ohm resistor off.

Use the second DMM to measure the voltages: 

1a)Across the power supply.  It should be 10V.
1b)Across the 100K Ohm resistor.  It should be 10V.
1c)Across the 1 Ohm resistors.  It should be 0.1mV.

Write all these voltages down.
Read the current from the first DMM.  It should be close to 0.1mA

Now turn the toggle switch on.

Read the voltages and current again.

The voltage across the 1 Ohm resistors didn't change did it? 
So the current and power through the 1 Ohm resistors as a set both doubled, didn't they?
The power through the 1 Ohm resistors doubled, didn't it?
But the voltage from the power supply as read on the voltmeter did not change, did it?
And neither did the voltage as measured across the 100K Ohm resistor, did it?
And the current through the circuit as measured by the first meter didn't change did it?

So, does that mean that you got 2X power through the 1 Ohm resistors without drawing any extra power from the power supply? 
Does it mean you got any free energy?

If TH lacks the skills to convert infinite free energy to useful power, he needs TK's transverter.

[MarkE]

@MarkE,

Let's say a butcher grinds 1000 pounds of hamburger from 500 pounds of steer. You ask how come he can't turn the hamburger back into cattle; Therefore the extra meat's imaginary?

If he is going to try and convince me of such a thing, then we will use my scales before and after.

[MileHigh]

Chris:

I wish you and any participants good luck on the transformer testing thread and I am reposting the picture here again.

I suppose that I have a few suggestions and warning shots to fire across the bow for you and whoever decides to build it.

1.  Forest posted an unrelated link about getting "power from the air."  I would suggest to you and the team that you discourage that because it will mess up the thread which is supposed to be about building and testing your alleged COP 1.7 device.

2.  Where is your own data?  More pictures, measurements, dimensions, scope shots, test methodology, test setup, meter readings, power in and power out measurements?  You are on shaky ground from the get-go because of your limited skills and experience.  So how are we even supposed to know that your COP 1.7 claim is even credible?  I looked through your pdf doc and I didn't see anything like that.

3.  If I was going to build and test your device I would insist on having more information.  Just building off a picture and a claim with no other information gives you almost unlimited opportunities to make up excuses to shoot down any claims from replicators that it doesn't work.  I have seen this happen "all the time" so it's up to you to provide the proper information.

3.  If nobody can replicate your test results the first excuse from the claimant is that the replication wasn't true to the original.  So share your build data.  Is that a rectangular core that forms a closed magnetic circuit?  Where did you get it?  Is there a part number?  Do you have the spec for the ferrite core material?  What gauge of wire and how many turns?  If there are diodes what are the generic part number(s)?  Show some more pictures on your thread, I assume that you still have the device on your bench somewhere.

4.  I will state it again to all of the participants:  Do not let the thread degenerate into a ridiculous mess.  The first person that starts talking about Steron's solid state Orbo should get a demerit point.

5.  If TK or Itsu decide to replicate this device, and they get some help from MarkE and/or Picowatt, then you are going to be in for a rough ride.  The reason I am saying a "rough ride" is because a good replication from that team will be definitive and show the real truth.  No amount of name-calling or freaking out is going to change the good solid hard data that can be produced by that combo.  So if you want to show real character, you will have to concede that you were wrong.

6.  I am sorry you are peeved that I am calling it before anybody has built it.  But at the same time I am encouraging anybody that wants to build it to go forward and build it and test it.  I fully understand the determined desire to go and prove it to yourself no matter what anybody says.  Look, transformers either do something special or they don't.  There are 150+ years of history and science behind this.  I don't have nearly the same level of knowledge, experience, or competence as other people around here but that doesn't matter.  I can think clearly and visualize what is going on for stuff like this quite well and in five years I have never been wrong.

7.  If somebody is going to build this and they have limited knowledge and experience then do not be shy and ask your peers for help.  There is nothing worse than watching someone faking it and doing a bunch of nonsensical foolishness on their bench.  I will give you an example.  Recently Russ was making some measurements of some kind of spikey waveform and he was using the digital current meter display on his bench power supply.  For all anybody knows the current sensing circuitry inside a bench power supply is cheap junk and you can't rely on it at all for any serious measurements.  Don't bullshit yourself and ask for help.

8.  When you are going to report your results don't just make a live hand-held YouTube clip that's just a mish-mash of numbers on meters and unexplained shots of scope traces.  Those are totally bullshit clips.  Post your measurement data in table form, show a few pictures, show a schematic and show your measurement test points on the schematic.  Any voltage measurement done with a meter or an oscilloscope is done across two test points.  If you only show one point it's a super fail.  Nobody is going to assume that the unnamed test point is the ground - you must state both test points.

9.  A reminder, this is about making power-in and power-out measurements.  Anybody that relies on the resistor colour-code for the value of their load resistance is making a huge fail.  You take your best quality multimeter and you actually measure the value of the resistor.  Anybody that is too lazy to do that should not even be doing the experiment.

10.  Here is a big bugaboo for the forums:  error tolerances.  Off hand I can't recall any test threads or clips where experimenters made error tolerance estimates to go along with their data.  I am sure it is done sometimes but it is such a rare occurrence that I can't think of one right now.  It would be very confidence inspiring if when you presented your measurement data you included error tolerances.  Hey, I did it when I was 16 years old in my grade 11 physics and chemistry lab reports and you can do it too.

I know this all sounds like a pain in the ass, but it is worth stating.  Clips vary from incoherent messes with rat's nests of alligator clips and zero information to well done clips with full supporting documentation where it's the supporting documentation that counts and not the clip itself.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Well a lot of people have thought about it for centuries, documented their ideas and performed experiments to test those ideas.  And that's what's got us to where we are now.  It hardly makes where we are the end all, but it does represent a lot of careful thought and verified observation.

Back to the idea of a magnetic particle flow if you will:  If these particles have mass and/or momentum ( calculus lets us have momentum with essentially zero mass ), I wonder how that could work seeing as how the flow at whatever the velocity is doesn't seem to be detectable in things that have low permeability, like plastic or wood.  This "magnetic wind" therefore doesn't seem to have ordinary properties of mass or momentum.  It seems to "blow harder" on certain materials.  One of the characteristics of this "magnetic wind" is that it always seems to circulate.  We never seem to see it blow from one point spreading in all directions the way the "electric wind" from charged things do.

As far as i know,in order to exert a force on a mass,then that force must also have mass(although the photon needs a bit more thought?). These particles may be some sort we dont know about,and stands to reason as we dont know what it is that grabs a piece of iron and pulls it toward a magnet. That being said,do we know what creates a magnetic field for sure?.

My theory is not just one of the top of my head,it is related to my dad's work(which he didnt get to finish before he passed away). To be straight up front-he knew something we dont,and it's that something i have been looking for for 2 years now. We did work together for some 8 years on various thing's,but the !big event! wasnt discovered until myself and my mother was cleaning up his workshop after he died-and that is where i will stop with that. But while on the road(as i do long haul freight),i do get a lot of time to think,and i try to piece things together so as they make sense.
I just started looking for known examples of charged partical acting on other things not related to magnetic materials or magnets. It is interesting that you said  Quote:I wonder how that could work seeing as how the flow at whatever the velocity is doesn't seem to be detectable in things that have low permeability, like plastic or wood.
My answer for this is we are simply useing the wrong fuel in a sense-wrong particles,and/or wrong frequency. Lets have a look at static charge/electricity,and this also seems to fit quite well with my theory.

Coulomb's Law seems to indicate that only objects with opposite charges should be attracted to one another,while objects with like charges should repell each other. But this is not always the case, as either will be attracted to objects with a net neutral charge. What else is interesting is that objects that have a weak positive charge are also attracted to objects with a strong positive charge-and the same is true for negatively charged objects. If you run a plastic comb through your hair,you now have your magnet that attracts paper and plastic's-or anything else that has the opposite charge.

As you can see,the above holds true for our humble magnet.Opposite charges attract(north atracted to south),and both charges are attracted to materials with a net neutral charge-EG iron. You will also see that if you take a weak ferrite magnet and a strong neo magnet,the two like poles will stick together when brought close enough. This seems to also confirm that an object with a week negative or positive charge will indeed be attracted to a strong negative or positive charge.

The picture below is my new modle for the humble magnet,and this is what i will be baseing my reserch toward now in regards to magnets.
It just makes more sense,and gives answers to that which we dont have with the current modle of the magnetic field.

So you see,we need different machines to do different job's. It seems to me that it is the type of different charges that attracts different materials.