Magnets, motion and measurement

[telecom]

Re Gotoluc measurements:
work = force x distance
I would like  Gotoluc to measure force for each segment of his input
and output dials, and multiply this force by the length of the segment.
Then add them together for the input and output.
This will give us input and output work.
The more segments he has, the more precise would be the calculations.
In fact, he already has everything in place, just needs to do the above
operations.
Regards

[dieter]

Useful topic, pitty I surf this page without a pdf reader, so I gotta frequently transfer stuff to my old win rig and read it there. A Gif or Png here and there would however not hurt me ^^


When it comes to magnetism, you have to forget all the theories about it, look at your own observations and then start thinking logically.


For instance, the fact that unequal poles link and jetstream in polar axis direction, while equal poles build a barrier at the equilibrium, that is flat like when you press your nose against a glass window and therefor 90 deg "off", compared to the jetstream of eg. N-S, that alone is remarkable.


Theoreticly, you could place two magnets N vs N, a half inch apart, Now take third magnet, position its South between them, right in the middle, like the columbus egg, attracted by both sides the same. By wiggling the third magnet side to side, you maybe can alternate the competitive fluxpaths (3 identic magnets) with little force. Just an idea that went trough my head atm, didn't mean to become off topic.

[Floor]

@dieter

              I read your above post some days ago, just didn't get around to
responding.

You are not off topic at all in your post.

This topic is for basic physics (mechanics) discussion, especially as it
applies to magnets....  measuring and understanding .... force, displacement,
work and energy.   Your comments were appreciated.

  regards
        floor

[dieter]

Thanks, Floor!


In one of my brighter moments I recently had a sudden vision the quantummechanical characteristics in magnetism and electricity, that led to the formulation of my theory, which goes beyond currently accepted teachings. I posted it already in an other thread, but would like to repost it here, since it fits the topic so well.


The ambient magnetic field of random equilibrium.
By Dieter Marfurt


Electrons can only move in the conductor if they align their natural spin to the shortest way between the potential diffrence. Thus their normally random spins accummulate. Their spin however produces a gyroscopic force yet to be named, that forces magnetic domains in the molecural/cristalline lattice  into a 90 degree angle. Once the domains are aligned, the "magnetism" will use these domeins like a highway. The Domains are not the magnet, they only rectify the magnetic force that is everywhere, but in a random xyz equilibrium.some materials can keep the domain orientation even after the current stops flowing, and become permanent magnets.[/size]On the other hand, exposing randomly spinning electrons to a magnetic field forces them to spin like a screw until they are out of reach. As free electrons are not really free, but elasticly connected to their original location, they will spin back when the magnetic field is decreasing. Electrons can be rilped off of that elastic connection, causing charge/electron holes, as in semiconductors, at the cost of high energy losses, which is why Tesla's AC won over Edisons DC, because in DC the losses increase tremendously over distance, where in AC electrons rarely lose their connection to their beloved equilubrium condo and basicly just bounce back and forth at a "rubberband".[/size]

[dieter]

Now, how do we make magnets?


By electricity, maybe like my theory says.


Secondly, we can permanently magnetize hard steel with a permanent magnet. So a magnet can make an other magnet. Does the first magnet getting used up or weaker? No, and that is the beauty of it! Forcing magnetic domains in a iron cristal lattice into alignement doesn't require energy in the conventional sense! This can only mean that the ambient magnetic equilibrium is excess energy by its own! Capable of creating further magnets, within the regime of known permeability.


If we can magnetize without energy loss then there is a high probability that we can also demagnetize without energy loss.


So these are the two commonly known methods of making permanent magnets. But there are more ways!


Take a brandnew hammer and a brandnew hardened steel screwdriver. Hold the screwdriver towards a stone ground and hit the hammer heavily on the Screwdriver's handle. You'll notice the tip will become permanently magnetized, so you can lift a nail with it. Due to gravity shockwaves!


You see we got already 3 ways to make a magnetic field and or a PM.


I think it is only a matter of decades, until we discover further ways to achieve this goal, more elegant ways, in which the energy costs are in now way related to the field strength achieved.


Some will argue that it is not true that we do not lose energy when magnetizing by a DC current. But the losses are in fact only the product of the secondary magnetic field, that, by its own, was created without energy as well, it just happens that the secondary field in conventional induction causes the electrons in the conductor to spin the opposite way, thus braking the rotation caused by the potential diffrence and effectively increase the DC rwsistance in the conductor.


Making magnets with DC currents is messy business, like slicing butter with a chainsaw.


So it may be a very important field in science to find new ways of magnetization.