Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[picowatt]

Tinman,

Regarding the drawing of your concept's magnetic field/particle flow you posted earlier, you show opposite polarity "particles" flowing from the poles on opposing directional vectors terminating into each other.  What do you envision as happening in the area where the two opposing particle flows meet?  Do the opposite polarity particles cancel where they meet and produce an area of no detectable field?

Does the detected polarity of your particles depend on both there type (i.e., north or south emanating) AND there directional vector or just one or the other?

How do you reconcile your theory with Itsu's Hall measurements?

PW

[Pirate88179]

SR?

Special Relativity.  AKA The Special Theory Of Relativity.

Bill

[tinman]

   

Do magnets have to work at room temperature.  You're special pleadings are getting silly.

Im getting silly?. You are the one going on about super conductors-->what have they got to do with every day devices that we use,eg,the humble computor. Then the claim that a super conductor requires no power input-->rubbish,the power input is in the form of cooling,unless you know a way of super cooling your super conductor without the use of energy,then your super conductor dose indeed need an energy input-->unlike that of the PM

That is utter BS.  I am really tired of this crap from you.  I have very patiently asked you question after question to get you to articulate your ideas and distill them down to where we can conduct experiments and you just keep repeating this insulting shit.

You expect answers when you deliver none of your own Mark. I have asked you !how many times?! what or how my modle would act any different to that of the current modle. B.S is when some one has tunnel vision,and dose not wish his belief's to be incorrect.

In the past dozen or so exchanges it has been a matter of pulling teeth to get you to make a statement that is not already disproven by countless experiments and stick with it.

All your experiments seem to revolve around the electromagnet,and time and time again i have asked that we refer all experiments to PM's. Look at my modle Mark,and tell me straight out what differences would we see in a PM if it worked the way i said it dose. would my modle not work the very same way as the current modle,would it not show the very same magnetic field effects? The difference is that my modle explains what it is that acts apon magnetically active materials,where as yours dose not

Note this nonsense where you insist first that all electromagnets must consume power, then when that doesn't fly you resort to more special pleadings concerning temperature or whether the magnet can go into a toy or not.

The nonsense lies within the belief that a superconductor dosnt require an energy input to retain it's super conductive properties.You just failed to note that the cooling needed is indeed an energy input. I have!on countless occasions! aske that we deal with PM's,not electromagnet's,and i also specified reasons for this on many occasions.

I have asked you specific questions such as how these "magnetic charges" form across a singularity and appear to repel away to each other at the point of creation while accelerating towards each other at the same time.

And this i have answered on many occasions as well. When the initial charge separation takes place,it is like charging a battery.When these oppositely charged particles exit the material that holds these seperated charged particles,they are then free to reunite,as opposites attract.Much the same happens in a solar panel-quote: Sunlight is composed of miniscule particles called photons, which radiate from the sun. As these hit the silicon atoms of the solar cell, they transfer their energy to loose electrons, knocking them clean off the atoms. .So a charge sepperation takes place,and gives us our voltage potential across the negative and positive output terminals.

In all of this you have failed to state any magnetic difference between EMs and PMs.  I am about done putting up with this.

I am about done asking repeatedly that we deal with PM's and not electromagnets for reasons explaind on a number of occasions.

You have instead fought tooth and nail to try and claim that there is a fundamental difference between EMs and PMs without articulating any magnetic difference.

I have made no such claim other than an electromagnet requires an energy input(including your super conductor),where as a PM dose not. Why do you continually try to misslead readers?.

The conventional explanation of a PM is that a majority of the atoms are electron spin aligned

Electron spin aligned? How dose one aligne two electrons that are spining?.This theoretical modle is becoming more bizare as we go-aligning spinning electrons ,and is makeing my modle look much more realistic. The Atom part we agree on,it dose play the role in how the magnetic field work's-->but not by trying to align spinning electrons.

Neutrons are not neutral?

If we are to assume that neutral means an even number of charges of opposite charge polarity,then no-neutrons are not neutral. If we are to assume that neutral means inactive or have no charge potential,then yes,they are neutral. Neutrons have no charge.

Show that the field in the gap would be any different using two U cores with a PM in the bottom.  You can't.  You are FoS.

Once again you are missleading the readers. I never said there would be any difference between useing a PM or an electromagnet. I have asked !how many! times now that we use PM's for reason that PM's require no power input.The whole idea in the end is to use PM's to generate power in a similar way that a solar panel or hydrogen fuel cell dose. Only your repeated insistance on useing electromagnets has added fuel to the fire of this discussion.

What was your profession again Mark?
Your theoretical modle of the magnetic field and how it works in regards to a PM is outdated,and incomplete-this is fact. If it was exacly as they say it is,then all would be answered. But after 200 years,they still cant answer the basic question's-there modle just dosnt supply the information needed to do so. One thing you said about gravity and the magnetic field hold  true-they dont know how either dose what it dose. All mass in regards to a PM(and most all other masses) are made of atom's,and atoms have both a negatively and positively charge particle-along with a neutral/no charge neutron.

[tinman]

Tinman,

Regarding the drawing of your concept's magnetic field/particle flow you posted earlier, you show opposite polarity "particles" flowing from the poles on opposing directional vectors terminating into each other.  What do you envision as happening in the area where the two opposing particle flows meet?  Do the opposite polarity particles cancel where they meet and produce an area of no detectable field?

Does the detected polarity of your particles depend on both there type (i.e., north or south emanating) AND there directional vector or just one or the other?



PW

PW
My modle is based around the Atom,and the charge separation of the atoms charged particles. When the charges are separated within the magnetic material,i see the electron pushed to one end,and the protons all pushed to the other end of the magnetic material-and i say this knowing that not all atoms will have there charges separated,and is dependand on material used as to how many atoms have there charges separated.The two separated oppositely charged particals(the electron and proton)remain separated within the magnetic material by a wall of neutrons.

Here is a little something you might like to read.
We all know the story. Electrons and protons are attracted to each other. That's why a balloon rubbed on hair clings to clothes. The electrons it gained are crying out for protons and dragging the rest of the balloon along with them. But electrons and protons are right next to each other in the atom. Why don't they just smoosh together?

Learning science is a lot like learning history; when you get to one class what you learn is that the things you learned in the last class, or in the last four years of high school, was wrong. Often, the teachers of the previous class get terribly resentful about this, and slip in little previews of what you'll be learning a few years from now. This adds some confusion for students and not a little crankiness for the later professors, but it is somewhat less surprising to learn, for example, that the model of an atom that has served so faithfully when describing bonds and electric flow and such simply doesn't hold up when you want to learn why the electron and the proton, which apparently are so enamored of each other that they'll pull together your laundry every time you take it out of the dryer, don't just rush at each other when they're staring at each other over the radius of, say, a hydrogen atom. A hydrogen atom has one central proton, which apparently attracts electrons, and one electron, which attracts protons, orbiting planet-like, around it. Despite their desire for each other, they don't just cross that tiny distance and come together in a torrid subatomic night of passion, and that makes no sense (in many ways, I suspect).

The only explanation for this, according to physics teachers, is that an electron, of course, does not hang outside a nucleus like a planet in a star system. How quaint it is that you believed that for all those years! It makes them chuckle, sympathetically and decorously, into their copy of Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman (It's signed!). The problem is that an electron doesn't exist as a planet-like blob and it doesn't orbit anything. Instead it's something that kind of 'might' exist over a range of area and at a range of velocities.

The overall combination forms an amorphous cloud of potential electron. And this cloud has an equilibrium. When it can spread out over a large space, it can have a pretty low range of velocities. When it's packed into a smaller space, its various velocities go up, and it pushes away again. (Yes, it's that Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that you last saw making a nuisance of itself in the second Jurassic Park movie.) The 'orbit' of the electron is the happy medium between the lovestruck electron rushing in towards the proton and collapsing the cloud, and the electron spreading away from the proton and growing listless and still.

For those who find this romance too sad, take heart. A bit of that cloud actually does pass into the nucleus, so they can be united, although they rarely interact even when they buzz through each other. Only unstable atoms, with a lot of protons in their center, will occasionally snag an electron. This wild night will leave the world with a thoroughly satisfied neutron - just a little bit heavier than a proton - and a little baby electron-sized neutrino being shot out of the atom to make its way in the world.

How do you reconcile your theory with Itsu's Hall measurements?

Could you please post the link here for me PW,as there were a few video's i say some time back.

[picowatt]

Tinman,

Do I understand from your response that the charges you refer to in a magnet are indeed the same as electrostatic/electric charges wherein a surplus of positive is at one pole and a surplus of negative is at the other pole?

Is this the same electrical charge we normally associate with causing electroscopes and voltmeters to react? 

I was under the impression you were theorizing a new particle or pair of particles associated with magnetic force.  If that is more so the case, then again, if you would, please answer the following:

Regarding the drawing of your concept's magnetic field/particle flow you posted earlier, you show opposite polarity "particles" flowing from the poles on opposing directional vectors terminating into each other.  What do you envision as happening in the area where the two opposing particle flows meet?  Do the opposite polarity particles cancel where they meet and produce an area of no detectable field?

PW