Faraday's Paradox experiment

[wings]

check for asymmetries in the two pairs of magnets:

fix a magnet and rotate the other this should have a neutral equilibrium in all angular positions.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

check for asymmetries in the two pairs of magnets:

fix a magnet and rotate the other this should have a neutral equilibrium in all angular positions.

Here's the conclusion to Kelly's paper.  Note that the implications still need discussion.  But the facts are consistent with what GB's showing us.

Conclusions

The lines of force rotate with a magnet upon its North-South axis.
The emf, that is produced in a nearby circuit by a magnet, is caused by the cutting of the
circuit by the lines of force of that magnet. It is not produced unless there is cutting of the
circuit by those lines of force; additionally the cutting must be in one direction (net), or be
by unequal force lines, if cut in two directions (net).
The Faraday Generator phenomenon is caused by the cutting of the stationary circuit by the
lines of force of the magnet, as the magnet rotates. It has previously been supposed that
the magnet is cutting its own lines of force.

When a disc is set rotating near the pole of the magnet, the results are anomalous. The
results are fully explained as being due to involvement of only a portion of the whole circuit.
'Faraday's Law' of electromagnetic induction is true only in particular circumstances. As is
known, a separate analysis is required for Motional Electromotive Force. One single general
rule is missing. This paper provides the basis for such a general rule.

regards,
Rosemary

[scotty1]

I think there is too much tech talk in the paper!
Sure if you spin the disc you get current but not if you spin the magnet only!
If it was true I/we could make a PM machine  but I've tested everything and it doesn't work because the field has to be thought of as a seperate entity to the magnet metal.

[KWP]

I think there is too much tech talk in the paper!
Sure if you spin the disc you get current but not if you spin the magnet only!
If it was true I/we could make a PM machine  but I've tested everything and it doesn't work because the field has to be thought of as a separate entity to the magnet metal.

Agreed.  But you are wasting electrons on this issue-- I think GB is more interested in being RIGHT that he is in the TRUTH.

I have seen the papers before that GB provided.  It's just a bunch of relativistic voodoo, (and special relativity is based on shaky foundations-- the two postulates assumed for it's foundation are wrong).

HOWEVER, you DO have to take into account the leads of the measuring instrumentation-- that part of the paper is correct-- but all of that is moot if you build an HMG with multiple conductors in place of the single disk.

I am going to come up with an experiment that settles this issue (one way or the other), and if I am wrong I will state so publicly on this forum.  Truth before ego!   

~KWP

P.S. -- In perusing the posts in various topics for a few months, I'm getting the feeling that there are some "disinformation agents" on this forum...

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi guys. Here's my tuppence worth.  I think that ohmage values relates to the resistance of a metallic structure.  I have not been able to measure any ohmage on any of my permanent ferrite magnets.  Not even when I line them up in a 'string'.  They're all small disc structures so the string is effectively an 8 guage wire. But I COULD measure an ac voltage.  Therefore I would conclude that if resistance is zero and voltage is greater than zero then- no matter WHAT I do, I will not extrapolate usable energy from the magnets themselves.  Unless I apply heat - in which case I destroy the magnetised condition of the structure.

However.  When the magnet induces a magnetic field in juxtaposed inductive/conductive materials - then I can definitely measure a voltage and most inductive/conductive materials have an associated ohmage value.  Therefore if resistance is greater than zero and if there's a measurable voltage then I can get usable energy from that structure. 

The difference between the two structures is perhaps this.  The atomic 'domains' in a permananet magnet are fixed and do not correspond to the flux lines extruded from the magnet.  In magnetisable material they are not fixed and they do correspond.  Since - unlike the permanent magnet - the inductive/conductive material is able to generate heat then I would conclude that ohmage and heat are related.  But it first requires the application of changing magnetic fields which is managed by turning a rotor with attached magnets - for instance.  This varies the material structure of the induced field.  It does not vary the structure of the permanent magnet.

The question then is what is the property of Ohmage that also allows for this heat?  I would propose that it is related to the crystalline structure of that inductive/conductive material and that it is a measure of the organised or disorganised  state of its crystalline abodes.  The more disorganised the greater the consequent heat.  Inductive material is more disorganised than conductive.  Therefore inductive will generate greater heat than conductive.

The relevance to this is that the extruded magnetic fields in conductive/inductive material - that result from proximity to permanent magnets is then related to that crystralline structure.  And this is what actually determines the usuable properties of Inductive Laws.  Magnets of themselves are not usable.  Magnetisable materials are also - by themselves not usable.  It requires an interaction of both - and, more to the point, the 'breaking' of those flux lines in that magnetisable material - which is measured as voltage - to generate anything usable. 

Therefore.  Inductive Laws require the application of both permanent and induced flux to generate work.  And magnet on magnet interactions from two or more permanent magnets do NOT result in an electromagnetic interaction precisely because there is no discernable resistance in the material structures of either magnets.  They conjoin at an angle of 180 degrees - but any variation to that angle of interaction allows for a complete break in their conjoined lines.  This much evident in GB's tests.  This may induce a marginal positional adjustment in space - of the entire magnet.  But it will invariably  then default to a preferred 'joined' state as allowed and subject to vagaries of their positions in space.

In as much as the magnetic field from a permanent magnet does not rely on a continued electric interaction, therefore is there the possibility that a magnetic field can be seen as a fundamental force existing without the application of an electric field.  And a continued electromagnetic interaction relies on a flux that is changing its position in space.  Else - without that changing position of flux - the material interaction defaults to a preferred 'rest state'.  Interestingly the angle of interaction at 180 degrees determines a magnet on magnet interaction.  An interaction at 90 degrees determines an electromagnetic interaction.   

That's my tuppence worth.   Sorry it's a bit ponderous.
Regards,
Rosemary