Joule Thief 101

[hoptoad]

snip...
You need to get away from the electron as being the all mighty--as it is not when it comes to electromagnetic radiation.
snip...

Indeed, there seems to be a fly in the ointment when it comes to the most powerful magnetic sources in the universe, which according to astronomers is neutron stars, or magnetars, which are supposedly a variant of neutron stars. According to descriptions of neutron stars, there can be no free electrons or protons. So where does the magnetism come from? That's got me stumped! Then again, I think neutron stars are like black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and dark flow. All figments of the imagination of old school astronomers clinging desperately to the flawed 'standard' model they hold so dearly to their hearts.
Cheers.

[SeaMonkey]

So where does the magnetism come from?

Could it perhaps be due to charged particles moving at a
high velocity?  How rapidly does the magnetar rotate?

[tinman]

Could it perhaps be due to charged particles moving at a
high velocity?  How rapidly does the magnetar rotate?

Now-what device uses/depends on charged particles moving at extremely high velocities to produce a DC current?.



Brad

[MagnaProp]

...my theory on the magnetic force being the flow of positive and negative charges...

I find your theory very interesting. I believe in what Edward Leedskalnin says in his book and your comment reminds me of that. Just curious if you believe in what Ed says as well?

...Now-what device uses/depends on charged particles moving at extremely high velocities to produce a DC current?....

Homopolar motor?

[sm0ky2]

I find your theory very interesting. I believe in what Edward Leedskalnin says in his book and your comment reminds me of that. Just curious if you believe in what Ed says as well?

Homopolar motor?

The thing about Ed, was
You don't have to 'believe'

he wrote down his experiments, that verify his statements.

If you find yourself "not believing" Ed, it is probably because you did not perform the experiments he set forth.

The biggest problem people face when reading Ed's work, is the language barrier.
He uses words and concepts not commonly expressed in electrical or magnetic theory.
This causes a break-down in communication of the concepts he presents.
If you can get yourself past your own education, and biased-perspective
Then, and only then, can you learn what Ed was trying to teach us.

Ed's own lack of education gave him the unique advantage of being able to observe empirical data
without the bias presented by a modern education.

The thing to remember is, even the most advanced of our current magnetic theories,
does no justice to describing what exactly a magnetic field "is".
Only what it does, in discrete situations.
Most of the situations Ed presents, are not found in current theory.
Therefore - what Ed describes, is a unique field of research, that he alone dominated.
He is the expert in this field.
Until such time, that someone else comes along and describes Ed's experiments in a manner
which coincides with current theory. - this cannot be done in our current state.
Things that prevail themselves in Ed's experiments, have no current model.

The last corporation to attempt this (IBM) lost several millions in research and funding, trying to describe anomalies
that do not fit our current theories.
Ed explained in great detail what was going on in this situation, however, modern physics has no analogy.
Thus IBM was forced by the scientific community, to retract their claims, and abandon research in these areas.

I would urge anyone interested in Magnetics, to pick up a copy of the book "Magnetic Current"
and go through the experiments Ed sets forth.
They can all be done using a car battery and pieces of junk you find laying around.

He walks you through his perspective of "what a magnet is"
How to make a magnet
and Ways to use magnets, that no one else on earth seems to do.

Now, the particular words Ed chooses to use, may not fit your personal understanding of magnetics.
This does not make anything that is observed during these experiments, any less "real".
Only "less understood", due to the difference in terminology and concepts used.

Ed may have been more correct than our current physics models, in some regards.

In either case, what he shows us, is we don't know everything we think we know.....