Science contradicts itself..Questions

[rangerover444]

Sorry for the quality, I hope these are better :

[Koen1]

Rangerover,

alright, thanks for bringing up this example of Eds experiments.
Allow me to explain how I look at this;
I see a confirmation of commonly accepted electron-based elecromagnetic theory
in this experiment.
We know that a circular magnetic field surrounds a wire through which current runs.
We can, just like Ed did, use compass needle magnets that we hold and move
around the wire to show this. Except that Ed apparently did not make such an observation
directly on the wire, but rather he first starts to use the current wire to produce
magnetised pieces of steel wire through normal magnetisation. (I say "normal"
because there is nothing extraordinary about steel or iron wire that becomes magnetised
under the influence of such a circular magnetic field when the wire is allowed to become
red hot.)
Now taking this fact of a circular B-field around a current wire, and putting a piece of
steel or iron wire on top of it and one below it, at 90 degrees, and the two touching
the live wire, magnetisation in the orientation shown in your drawings is to be expected.
It does not automatically prove any assumed opposing flow of magnetic particles at all.

So yes, the effect of the wires becoming magnetised so that one wire must turn around
in order for them both to face the same pole the same direction, as described by Ed,
is an observation that accords 100% with accepted electromagnetic theory.
But in my opinion it is still no reason to conclude that therefore there must be two
opposed magnetic monopole flows rather than one electric flow.
That is simply an assumption which Ed keeps throwing into his story, but there
is no clear reason to dismiss the electron in favour of it at all.

I have also seen an experiment on YouTube done by Sparks I believe, that claims
to be a Leedskalnin-inspired setup of a core made of strainds of iron wire coiled in a circle,
then cut in the middle and two permanent magnets connected in between as to create a
magnetic "circuit" in the "core", and one coil wound around the "core" on one end,
a bifilar coil wound arounf the "core" on the other end, then he pulses the one coil
and gets an interesting scope pic from the bifilar that shows a sort of fluctuating wave
superposed onto the crests and valleys of the input oscillations. In the video I believe
it is remarked that this clearly shows the "up" and "down" magnetic flow.
I disagree and I just see magnetic resonance effects of the permanent magnets on the
iron of the core, that become more pronounced and visible on the scope due to an
offset or imbalance created by the input oscillations... Which again does not need
assumed opposing monopole magnet flows to be understood, necessarily.

In any case, in my opinion the example you brought up and drew does not conflict
commonly accepted electromagnetic theory, nor does it give any good reason why
Leedskalnins concept of two oppositely flowing magnetic monopole currents is in any
way a better or more clear model than the electron based model.

I would still love to see a Leedskalnin theory based device (or design) that does things
that do not accord with established electron-based theory.
Like a setup that manages to pull actual current from a permanent magnet directly.
After all, if it is so simple that two oppositely polarised magnetic monople flows
flow out of (and back into) a permanent magnet all the time, and these opposite
monopole flows must 'simply' bump into eachother and entangle to produce electron
flow, then we should be able to come up with an ingenious coil setup that allows
these monopole flows to combine into current, with no other source than the monopole
source.
And if we want to show something like that, I think we must in any case not use a
setup where we flip the flux from a permanent magnet alternately through seperate
legs of the core. That works, but then we're just flipping the flux like in a transformer,
and that is again understandable as normal electromagnetics and does not need
any Leedkalnin style monople assumption either... So it cannot be used as proof
of his theory. Well, it might, but in the same manner as it "proves" electron-based interpretations:
it does not necessarily disprove the other.

Thanks for taking the time to draw it out though. Much appreciated.
I usually "draw" these things in my mind, which makes it easier to also use it as a dynamic simulation.
And the picture in my mind, although it does not use the same colours as your drawing, is very similar.
In my mental picture I also have Ed standing on the East or West side of the box, putting the wires
on the current wire, etc. After all, Ed is very clear on where he puts what. That is one thing I do like
(and have always liked) about his story: he at least tries to describe clearly how he did what.
He doesn't really succeed always though. For example, he never says very clearly how the monopole
currents "swirl". Yes, he says they both "swirl" in the same "right-hand" fashion, but in the same sentence
he says the flows are opposed. This can be interpreted in different ways. It can mean that each flow
has a right-hand rotation in its own direction of motion, or it can mean that the combination of the two rotates
along the same axis in the same direction in the cross-section of the wire, which could mean they
have opposite rotation in respect to their individual directions of motion. Hm... I see this may come across
quite unclear... I hope you see what I'm saying. Does Ed mean the opposite flow each have their own individual
right-hand rotation, or does the pair have a right-hand rotation at the point where they "intersect" or "combine"
to form electrical current? I would assume he means it the way you drew it, as that seems to correspond with
the circular magnetic field around a wire... but it could be that that was not exactly what he meant to suggest...
Well, anyway, it seems to me this is a good example of Ed giving a lot of details yet still not being perfectly
clear in what exactly he is trying to describe.

[rangerover444]

Koen,

Thanks for your observation and thorough explanations (not many people pay that much
attention to Ed?s tests, even if the try the tests in their heads?).
Allow me to follow your notes and make comments :

Koen : ?I see a confirmation of commonly accepted electron-based electromagnetic theory
            in this experiment.?
- The phenomena might be explained, not the drawing.

Koen : ?We know that a circular magnetic field surrounds a wire through which current runs.?
- circular - yes, but what circular ?  We can have waves go in straight lines, standing waves,
    spiral, Longitudinal waves, pressure waves, etc. 
- How do they go in and out of the wire ?
- Is centrifugal force and other angular momentum laws are involved ?
- Just ?magnetic field around the wire?, is insufficient to describe how it works.

Koen : ?We can, just like Ed did, use compass needle magnets that we hold and move
             around the wire to show this. Except that Ed apparently did not make such an
             observation directly on the wire, but rather he first starts to use the current wire
             to produce magnetized pieces of steel wire through normal magnetization.
             (I say "normal" because there is nothing extraordinary about steel or iron wire that
             becomes magnetized under the influence of such a circular magnetic field when
             the wire is allowed to become red hot.)?
- You cannot hold a compass around ?charged wire? and understand the delicate lines of
    force and draw a picture from that,  since neither compass nor magnetic needle can detect it.
- This is why Ed chose to start with unmagnified needle (hard fishing wire), so it will pick up
    the currents that run in the wire and reflect their movement. Very much the way a slide-show
    machine run light through the slide to reflect the small image on a large white screen.
- Ed used the current in the wire to magnetized the needles, in order to show how the currents
    runs, not necessarily to magnetized the needles (?Through normal magnetism?).
-  Sorry to say that again but the words ?magnetic field?, ?Flux? or ?vortex?, are insufficient
    to describe in detail ?what?s inside? and how it works.


Koen : ?Now taking this fact of a circular B-field around a current wire, and putting a piece of
             steel or iron wire on top of it and one below it, at 90 degrees, and the two touching
             the live wire, magnetization in the orientation shown in your drawings is to be expected.
             It does not automatically prove any assumed opposing flow of magnetic particles at all.?
- As long as you put the needles across the wire - IN ANY ANGLE OR ABOVE OR BELOW,
    The needle will magnetized according to the motion of two ?right hand whirling motion?
    Currents that enter the wire from both side and run one against another.
- I will be pleased to see another explanation as to why the needles are magnetized exactly
   as they are (North pole and South pole always reflect the current runs in the wire).
- Here is another interesting point :  common theory claim that the magnetic field will operate
    at 90 degrees to an electric wire (with running electricity), which is correct, but insufficient,
    Since the ?magnetic field? is not ?one bulk? and magnets. It have laws, it have orientation,
    it have two poles and characteristics.  Pay attention to the drawings and see that the needles
    can be magnetized (N or S poles side) - ONLY IN ONE WAY.  So the magnetic field that
    is 90 degrees to the wire described by science is not wrong - but vague and unclear (which
    preventing to identify the ?players?).


Koen : ?So yes, the effect of the wires becoming magnetized so that one wire must turn around
             in order for them both to face the same pole the same direction, as described by Ed,
             is an observation that accords 100% with accepted electromagnetic theory.
             But in my opinion it is still no reason to conclude that therefore there must be two
             opposed magnetic monopole flows rather than one electric flow.
             That is simply an assumption which Ed keeps throwing into his story, but there
             is no clear reason to dismiss the electron in favor of it at all.
- Let me correct you on something : Ed says that one current by itself - cannot run, only two
    currents of different poles can run (one against another), since they are attracting each other.
- It may not be a scientific question, but why do we need electrons and magnets ? 
    Why not one of the that is both ?



Koen : ?I have also seen an experiment on YouTube done by Sparks I believe, that claims
             to be a Leedskalnin-inspired setup of a core made of strands of iron wire coiled in
             a circle, then cut in the middle and two permanent magnets connected in between as
             to create a magnetic "circuit" in the "core", and one coil wound around the "core" on
             one end, a bifilar coil wound around the "core" on the other end, then he pulses the one
             coil and gets an interesting scope pic from the bifilar that shows a sort of fluctuating
             wave superposed onto the crests and valleys of the input oscillations. In the video I
             believe it is remarked that this clearly shows the "up" and "down" magnetic flow.
             I disagree and I just see magnetic resonance effects of the permanent magnets on the
             iron of the core, that become more pronounced and visible on the scope due to an
             offset or imbalance created by the input oscillations... Which again does not need
             assumed opposing monopole magnet flows to be understood, necessarily?.
- Sorry, I did not see the video and it?s a little hard for me to understand exactly what he did.
    If you don?t mind, please put up this link so I could watch.
- One of Ed?s nicest tests, have to do with spinning Iron Filings with rotating magnet underneath,
   that creates ridges and valleys, that look like a Rose flower   ,though I think the test you saw is
   a bit different, and it is not one of Ed?s original tests.
- I don?t mean to say nothing with regard to this guy specifically. But believe it or not,
    Most of Ed?s  inspired personal - discovered something new, but it?s only 2% of what they
    should discovered. And even these 2% are fascinating, the problem is, that they take it
    further without do all of Ed?s tests and without the observations that comes from these tests.
    So even if there are 2,000 people like that in the world maybe 2 or 4 got really far with it (and
    even they still have much more to study).  If you ?let in? Ed?s ideas (by reducing in your mind
    the ?flow of text-book currents?), they are Explosive !!!  Unfortunately most people that try
    that, don?t know how to handle it and ends up with their own imaginary ?Ed?s theory??.


Koen : ?I would still love to see a Leedskalnin theory based device (or design) that does things
             that do not accord with established electron-based theory.
             Like a setup that manages to pull actual current from a permanent magnet directly.
             After all, if it is so simple that two oppositely polarized magnetic monopole flows
             flow out of (and back into) a permanent magnet all the time, and these opposite
             monopole flows must 'simply' bump into each other and entangle to produce electron
             flow, then we should be able to come up with an ingenious coil setup that allows
             these monopole flows to combine into current, with no other source than the monopole
             source.
- I wish like you to see ?Leedskalnin based device?, that does things differently then established
   theory (a working model), though I would say that is already here, since it is not the model that
   is so important, it?s how THINGS WORKS - that make the model. And it?s more up to anyone
   to test it and verified it for themselves (or not?).
- By the way, Ed?s PMH (Perpetual Motion Holder) - works not according to accepted electricity.
   But since my post is already too long, I will bring it up in the future.


Koen : ?And if we want to show something like that, I think we must in any case not use a
             setup where we flip the flux from a permanent magnet alternately through separate
             legs of the core. That works, but then we're just flipping the flux like in a transformer,
             and that is again understandable as normal electromagnetic and does not need
             any Leedkalnin style monopole assumption either... So it cannot be used as proof
             of his theory. Well, it might, but in the same manner as it "proves" electron-based
             interpretations: it does not necessarily disprove the other.?
-  Sorry, not sure which setting you mean, I have to see the whole picture prior to
    making comments.


Koen : ?Thanks for taking the time to draw it out though. Much appreciated.
              I usually "draw" these things in my mind, which makes it easier to also use it as a
              dynamic simulation.
             And the picture in my mind, although it does not use the same colours as your drawing,
             is very similar.  In my mental picture I also have Ed standing on the East or West side
             of the box, putting the wires on the current wire, etc.
- Doing tests in your mind - are great gift (Tesla used to do that as well). But sometimes ?reality
    exceeds all imagination??   Doing the physical tests, may always reveal one corner we could
    not imagine. It?s like talking with someone on the phone, rather face to face?.



Koen : ?After all, Ed is very clear on where he puts what. That is one thing I do like
             (and have always liked) about his story: he at least tries to describe clearly how he did what.
             He doesn't really succeed always though. For example, he never says very clearly how the
             monopole currents "swirl". Yes, he says they both "swirl" in the same "right-hand" fashion,
             but in the same sentence he says the flows are opposed. This can be interpreted in
             different ways. It can mean that each flow has a right-hand rotation in its own direction of
             motion, or it can mean that the combination of the two rotates along the same axis in the
            same direction in the cross-section of the wire, which could mean they have opposite rotation
            in respect to their individual directions of motion. Hm... I see this may come across
            quite unclear...
            I hope you see what I'm saying. Does Ed mean the opposite flow each have their own
            individual right-hand rotation, or does the pair have a right-hand rotation at the point
            where they  "intersect" or "combine" to form electrical current? I would assume he
            means it the way you
            drew it, as that seems to correspond with the circular magnetic field around a wire... but it
            could be that that was not exactly what he meant to suggest...
            Well, anyway, it seems to me this is a good example of Ed giving a lot of details yet still
            not being perfectly clear in what exactly he is trying to describe?.
-  Ed did not explained many things, that is up to us to figure out (or not).
- He said how the monopoles swirl, but he did not say for instance how they pass one another,
   or how the triggering mechanism works (?every time you send one type of magnet, the other type
   will come in the opposite direction?). It is true that many things he never explain, I think he did
   that on purpose, since ?you don?t give away gold for free??  Who ever wants to know, must make
   the effort? Meanwhile I can say that it works for me.
- If you want to visual the two opposing currents (right hand swirl) try to see two spring that you
   ?screw? them together.
- When magnet currents are running inside a wire, they run in great numbers, and it make sense that
    North pole attract South pole, so they must run one against another.
- Each stream have it?s own rotation, but let?s leave that for next posts, since it?s a discussion
   for itself.
- I agree with you that two drawings of his tests, are insufficient. But we can examine more tests.

Forgive my long post. I just think that since the internet is such ?Un-Personal? tool
that you can always ignore the part that the other person said, and talk only about you
want to say (like two deaf people are talking or like Babylon-Tower, if you will?)

Cheers

   

[Koen1]

- The phenomena might be explained, not the drawing.

That's right, the drawing just shows Eds interpretation. But the observations do not
prove there is any opposite flow of magnetic monopole particles necessarily. It is
merely a possible explanation if you assume those particles.

- circular - yes, but what circular ?  We can have waves go in straight lines, standing waves,
    spiral, Longitudinal waves, pressure waves, etc.

Yes, we can have waves in all kinds of forms. But the magnetic field around a wire is not a wave.
It is a static field of circular geometry, not a circular variation in the field intensity (which a circular
wave would be). It is the static magnetic field lines that "run" in a circle. Lines, not waves.  

- How do they go in and out of the wire ?

Well, in Leedskalnins model where
these lines are not static but dynamic flows of monopole particles, this is also not explained
clearly. But in the electron model there is no "they", and "they" do not move "in and out" of the wire,
the magnetic field simply envelops the moving electrons at a 90 degree angle to the electric field
lines. Nothing is moving in and out of the wire. The moving electron and the magnetic field are
"connected" through spin coupling (of the electron).

- Is centrifugal force and other angular momentum laws are involved ?

According to the electron model, no. According to Leedskalnins model, totally unclear.
He gives no good explanation for this; might just as well be magic.

- Just ?magnetic field around the wire?, is insufficient to describe how it works.

Yes, you need to understand how electrons have spin and how spin and magnetism are related.
But just assuming two totally unfounded magnetic monopole flows and claiming that is the
explanation, while not actually explaining these things such as possible angular momentum etc
in that same model does not seem like a very good alternative to me.

- You cannot hold a compass around ?charged wire? and understand the delicate lines of
    force and draw a picture from that,  since neither compass nor magnetic needle can detect it.

No, that is true, but more so because there is no circular magnetic field around a mere charged wire.
It is a wire with current on it that has a circular magnetic field. Eds simple tests always involved
curent as well, never static charge. And Eds tests also are equally incapable of showing anything more
'delicate' than the circular magnetic field around the conductor. No matter how often he shouts
it must be opposed flows of magnetic monopoles, he never observes this. In fact, he never truly
observes any opposed magnetic flows. He simply assumes the N monoples must flow oppositely
to the S monopoles, and that they are and remain seperate flows. No observation of that at all,
no proof, mere assumption. It could just as well be that there is only one flow and that there
are no magnetic monopoles. After all, Eds N flow exits a magnet at the N pole and re-enters it at
the S pole, and the S flow exits at the S pole and enters at the N pole, and apparently these opposing
flows have zero trouble while plowing through eachother head-on in a magnet, but at the same time
they must always flow in an opposing whirling motion and should, according to Eds own claims,
produce the effect of electric current where they collide. But they only collide in conductors, not
in the magnet itself? Why would they collide in an inductor core and produce current in the windings
of a coil surrounding it, and not in a magnet with a coil around it? After all, the flows are still opposite,
the particles still have a "whirling motion"... Why does the coil only "see" a current when the magnetic field
is changed?
Well, according to the electron model that is because static field lines and dynamic flow are two different
things, and electron motion causes a magnetic field, while likewise magnetic field motion causes an electric
field, which causes electrons in a conductor in this field to move if they are mobile enough (= not "tied to" atoms/molecules
to rigidly so they can actually move if a field is applied).
According to Leedskalnin, magnetism is a dynamic flow just like current, so we should be able to get current directly
out of a permanent magnet.
I do not know of any setup whatsoever where current is drawn directly from a permanent magnet, besides the Magnetstromapparat
of Coler (/Cohler), and as far as I know nobody has managed to replicate that effect.
I aslo do not see Ed doing that, while his dynamic flow model should allow for it...

- This is why Ed chose to start with unmagnified needle (hard fishing wire), so it will pick up
    the currents that run in the wire and reflect their movement. Very much the way a slide-show
    machine run light through the slide to reflect the small image on a large white screen.

I disagree. I agree that Ed seems to think that his simple wire magnetisation experiment somehow
shows his assumes opposite flows, but it really does not. It confirms the observation of magnetism
around a wire, which is the basis of Eds assumption, but you cannot use an obervation as basis of an
assumption, then do the same observation and claim it is proof of your assumption. That is a circular
argument. It is like saying "I have so far only ever seen white swans. I therfore assume there are only
swans of the white colour variety. Again, so far I have only seen white swans. This proves my assumption
that only white swans exist." It is an invalid conclusion. Black swans could exist that you simply have not
seen yet, and your assumption does not suddenly make them fade from existence. I hope you follow the
analogy?
The way I see it, Ed says "look, a normal wire with dc current has a surounding magnetic field,
of which the field lines of the top half are opposed to those in the bottom half. And when I allow
a wire to get hot while in that field, my wire now magnetises according to those field lines.
I assume this must have something to do with monopole flows, and since I can imagine how such
monopole flows could give rise to this observation, I conclude that it must necessarily be so,
and I just act as if the original observation on the basis of which I formed my assumption is
the proof of it at the same time."
And he never attempts to test his assumption. He just continues it. But since any observations
in Eds interpretation are identical to observations in the electron model interpretation,
there is no good reason to opt for Eds version in favour of the other.

-  Sorry to say that again but the words ?magnetic field?, ?Flux? or ?vortex?, are insufficient
    to describe in detail ?what?s inside? and how it works.

That is right, you need to study
magnetism and spin on the quantum level to understand how electron motion and magnetism
are related. But it does not necessarily need a model of dynamic flow of monopole particles
at all. I understand that that may be more intuitive and closer to the world of our daily experiences,
but that does not make it more correct.

Koen : ?Now taking this fact of a circular B-field around a current wire, and putting a piece of
             steel or iron wire on top of it and one below it, at 90 degrees, and the two touching
             the live wire, magnetization in the orientation shown in your drawings is to be expected.
             It does not automatically prove any assumed opposing flow of magnetic particles at all.?
- As long as you put the needles across the wire - IN ANY ANGLE OR ABOVE OR BELOW,
    The needle will magnetized according to the motion of two ?right hand whirling motion?
    Currents that enter the wire from both side and run one against another.

Please stop repeating what Ed said. I know what he said. I am still saying his assumption
of monopole flows is not proven anywhere, nor do any observations show that it is so,
nor that that interpretation is more usefull than the electron model. I am trying to make you
understand that, but you seem intent on blindly repeating Ed instead of thinking about what I said...

- I will be pleased to see another explanation as to why the needles are magnetized exactly
   as they are (North pole and South pole always reflect the current runs in the wire).

They are magnetised along the flied lines of the circular field around the wire!
Let's say this circular field has the lines "running" clockwise, then the wire in the top part of it
is magnetised along those lines running left to right, while the wire in the bottom part is magnetised
right to left. The field orients the ferromagnetic domains in the iron/steel wire according to its
field lines, once the wire is hot enough for the iron to have become magnetically polarisable.
Just as would happen when you were to gold the wire between two magnets when it's hot.
The model Ed uses still does not explain why these flows behave the way they do,
and so his model does not explain why electricity and magnetism are related in the
way they are. It just gives a different view of the same mystery. It's just a view that
seems more intuitive but it doesn't make it any more logical.

- Here is another interesting point :  common theory claim that the magnetic field will operate
    at 90 degrees to an electric wire (with running electricity), which is correct, but insufficient,
    Since the ?magnetic field? is not ?one bulk? and magnets. It have laws, it have orientation,
    it have two poles and characteristics.  Pay attention to the drawings and see that the needles
    can be magnetized (N or S poles side) - ONLY IN ONE WAY.  So the magnetic field that
    is 90 degrees to the wire described by science is not wrong - but vague and unclear (which
    preventing to identify the ?players?).

Nope. Sorry. It only goes to show that the huge distinction between the seperate N and S monopole
flows that Ed assumed is not at all necessary. The magnetic field does not necessarily have to
consist of two opposed N and S flows. Ed never shows why this should be, never proves it, it is
yet another one of his assumptions. Ed is the one being vague and unclear, making wild
assumptions about monopole flows that are based on nothing, and using observations that
do not exclude the electron model at all to claim that his assumptions are correct.

- Let me correct you on something : Ed says that one current by itself - cannot run, only two
    currents of different poles can run (one against another), since they are attracting each other.

How is that a correction? I never said otherwise, did I?

- It may not be a scientific question, but why do we need electrons and magnets ? 
    Why not one of the that is both ?

Pardon? The electron is both, in a way...
Allow me to reveal a neat little fact: if we were to travel alongside the electron, with the same speed,
we would see that there is no magnetic field around it. If we stand still and two electrons move alongside
with the same speed, we see both of them surrounded by a magnetic field, but they do not see eachother
surrounded by the same field. To them, there is no magnetic field. That is because, when all is worked out,
magnetism only occurs in situations of relative motion. It is a relativistic effect of accelleration. Sort of.
That is also why a current through a coil generates a static magnetic field, but a static magnetic field
does not create ("induce") a current in a coil. Similarly, an alternating magnetic field induces a current in a coil,
but a current in a coil does not generate an alternating magnetic field.
Do you see how the situation appears to be asymmetrical in that respect?
So in a way, the magnetic field is an observer effect, it only exists to the observer that watches the electron move
and watches its resultant magnetic field. I repeat: observes the field that exists only to this observer when
the electron moves in respect to the observer, a field that does not exist to the electron itself, nor to other observers
traveling along with this electron.
That is one thing Ed Leedskalnin omitted to test: what happens if you move along with your current. Then all of a sudden
your magnetism disappears. Which kind of kills the concept of the magnetism being the prime force and the electron
being the resultant effect, of course...

- I don?t mean to say nothing with regard to this guy specifically. But believe it or not,
    Most of Ed?s  inspired personal - discovered something new, but it?s only 2% of what they
    should discovered. And even these 2% are fascinating, the problem is, that they take it
    further without do all of Ed?s tests and without the observations that comes from these tests.
    So even if there are 2,000 people like that in the world maybe 2 or 4 got really far with it (and
    even they still have much more to study).  If you ?let in? Ed?s ideas (by reducing in your mind
    the ?flow of text-book currents?), they are Explosive !!!  Unfortunately most people that try
    that, don?t know how to handle it and ends up with their own imaginary ?Ed?s theory??.

Claims claims but I still need to see ony of those spectacular discoveries...
Where are they?
What are they?
Please show me some. I've been asking for that ever since our discussion started here,
and still have not seen any.

- Doing tests in your mind - are great gift (Tesla used to do that as well). But sometimes ?reality
    exceeds all imagination??   Doing the physical tests, may always reveal one corner we could
    not imagine. It?s like talking with someone on the phone, rather face to face?.

Yes. But then, if we do the tests, and the observations accord with both the electron model and
Eds model, then we cannot conclude on the basis of those tests alone that Eds model is in any
way better or more correct then the electron model.
And as I have said so often before, I do not see Ed do anything that the electron model does not
predict or explain.

If Eds model were correct and magnetism consists of opposte flows of N and S monopoles,
and current consists of these opposing flows "spiraling" against eachother,
then it should be easy to make a setup where we extract current directly from a permanent
magnet.
All we would need to do is to make a setup where the N and S monopoles swirl in the
right way along a wire...
Now we happen to have a really nice setup for a wire with current to produce a linear
magnetic field, and this is called a coil. We know that passing current through a coil
causes a magnetic field through the coil.
So, if Ed is right and we are dealing with dynamic monopole flows, we should be able
to simply wrap a coil around a magnet, and the magnetic field should induce a current
in the wire.
But that does not happen.
A permanent magnet can only induce a current in a coil if the magnetic field changes in
strength. Ed even observed that: only when you move a coil through a magnetic field
is a current induced in the coil.
Is it not odd that Ed himself observed that it needs magnetic field changes to
produce a current in a coil, which implies current (=dynamic electron flow) can only
be induced by dynamic interaction between the coil and the static magnetic field,
while in his model he claims the static magnetic field is not static at all but it consists
of two dynamic components?
Seems to me that he is saying that on the one hand a permanent magnet has a dynamic
flow, while on the other hand it is static and needs some other source of dynamics
to induce a dynamic electron flow...

And later on in his test Ed even claims that in an electric battery there are more N poles
on the one terminal than on the other, so more N flows, and this is what creates electron flow.
So now all of a sudden the N and S pole flows in a wire with current are not in balance,
but there is more N flow than S flow?
Ok, so let's assume that is why a coil around a magnet does not produce current then...
Let's assume we could indeed produce current in this setup, as long as we make sure
there is more N flow like Ed said.
Would it be enough to create an asymmetrical situation, where we try to guide the
"flux" from the N poles of two magnets on one end of the coil into the S pole of one
magnet? hmm...
Well, it seems to me that that should not produce any current, but it is an interesting
idea to test.... Need to think about this a bit, try to come up with a workable setup.
Something that might actually be a test of Eds assumptions, and if it works should
provide a nice example of the difference between Eds model and the elecron model.
...

Lol I've been nagging you for a good example that shows how Ed might be right
and shows the difference between the electron model and Eds view...
... and now I'm actually designing my own test...
Hehe well if anything at least you got me to take Leedskalnins story serious enough
to actually think about a good test setup. Which is of course completely absurd in the
electron view.

So let's take Leedkalnins remarks that a current from a battery "has more N poles
than S poles" and this is why there is an electrical current...
That seems to imply that, despite all of his previous talk about balanced opposite flows,
the only way to get a current out of a wire is for some kind of imbalance to be present;
this accords with his observation that one can only get AC from a coil when the coil is
moved in and out of a magnetic field (or rotated inside it), and with normal electromagnetic theory.
So somehow an imbalance must be created, and more monopoles of one kind have to
flow through the wire before we see a current... Yet Ed is very adamant about equal numbers
of these monopoles coming out of the opposing poles... This would mean that it is impossible
to take permanent magnets and use their "flux" to create any direct current in any other way
than moving the coil in the field. We can't create a monopole imbalance from perfectly balanced
permanent magnets, as the opposing flows will be equal, so that cannot get us current.
So we're back to the standard method of moving a coil in a magnetic field to get current out.

After pondering it a bit I cannot come up with a design that would somehow imbalance
the magnetic poles of a permanent magnet in such a way that a coil or wire could pick
up the imbalance as current. Or at least, that's what it looks like.

[rangerover444]

Koen, thanks for your thoughts.

Koen : ?Yes, we can have waves in all kinds of forms. But the magnetic field around
a wire is not a wave. It is a static field of circular geometry, not a circular variation in
the field intensity (which a circular wave would be). It is the static magnetic field lines
that "run" in a circle. Lines, not waves.?
- How can you build electric motor with coils around the armature, that surrounded
   with static electricity ?  When static electricity discharge - it's "poof" and it?s over.
   These coils provide constantly Moving magnetic waves to drive the armature.
- In this case the waves traveling across the wire - out.
- Magnetic field lines - are moving wave, even in a generator with permanent magnets
   around, the magnets get?s in the permanent magnet from the ?earth circulation? then
   pushed to the core, then the core pushes them to the coils around and from the wires
   to the resistor.
- If science could show the individual monopoles that are moving, etc.  we would not
   be here discussing that matter, but since they are too small and fast, science cannot
   detect them, let alone assume they are there?so they call it "magnetic flux".

Koen : ?Well, in Leedskalnins model where these lines are not static but dynamic flows
of monopole particles, this is also not explained clearly. But in the electron model there
is no "they", and "they" do not move "in and out" of the wire, the magnetic field simply
envelops the moving electrons at a 90 degree angle to the electric field lines. Nothing is
moving in and out of the wire. The moving electron and the magnetic field
are "connected" through spin coupling (of the electron).?
- The motion of the monopoles, presented and explained by Ed in all of his tests. Since
    they behave differently under different circumstances, many tests needs to be done in
    order to show each case.
- If in the electron model magnetic field are simply enveloping the moving electrons in
   the wire at 90 degrees angle to the electric field lines,  then :
   A. Why should the electron produce magnetic field ?
   B. Why not magnets producing magnetic field ?  Isn?t it more natural ? 
        In Niagara Falls, all the vapor and humidity from the falls - are not water ?  It?s like
        we would call them ?Elters? particles that produced by the flowing water ?
   C. How comes an electron with negative charge running in one direction - can produce
       two particles with two poles that runs in opposite directions. 
       Why Nature will act in such a twisted way ?
       Why Nature needs this ?spin coupling?, to convert electrons to magnets ?


RR444 : ?Is centrifugal force and other angular momentum laws are involved ?
Koen : ?According to the electron model, no. According to Leedskalnins model,
              totally unclear. He gives no good explanation for this; might just as well be magic.?
- So what convince the electron to exit the wire in 90 degrees, convert itself to magnetic
    field that have two poles that repel and attract ?
- How come a negative charged particle become two different type particles with North
    And South poles ?
- If an electron moves through a wire at a very high speed, how it can suddenly make a turn
    of  90 degrees (even if most of the ?electrons? continue straight forward) ?
- Nothing in nature that travel in such a high speed and suddenly make an ?ELL Turn?,
    why the electron have this privilege ?
- Or maybe we do need here centrifugal force after all ?   And if we have that force we could
    understand better how the particles runs inside the wire

Koen : ?Yes, you need to understand how electrons have spin and how spin and magnetism
are related.  But just assuming two totally unfounded magnetic monopole flows and claiming
that is the explanation, while not actually explaining these things such as possible angular
momentum etc in that same model does not seem like a very good alternative to me.?
- The angular momentum is integral part of Ed?s model. Once you have magnetic orbit and
   magnetic motion in whirling motion - you mast included angular momentum laws.
- ?Unfounded? is a term relate to human understanding, not necessarily to reality.


In order to keep the length of the post not too long. I will continue to answer and comment
on your notes in the next post.

Also I will bring up another interesting test, that will explain about the motion in the wire.

Cheers