Hi All,
I am going to replicate the Leedskalnin permanent magnet holder PMH. " Large U bolt used"
Can someone furnish me the CORRECT diagram of which way the wire coils are wound and
how they are linked to allow a charge to be applied activating the PMH device. Please indicate clockwise/counter clockwise wind on the diagram.
Can one coil be wound clockwise and the other counterclockwise and if so how are they linked?
Your help will be most appreciated.
While I`m not terribly familiar with this device in particular,I do recall the instructions in Leedskalnin's book go into some detail in regard to the coil winding.Have you read it?Starts around page 30ish I believe.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&sqi=2&ved=0CD8QFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffreeenergynews.com%2FDirectory%2FMagnets%2FLeedskalnin%2FMagnetic-Current_Edward-Leedskalnin_51pp.pdf&ei=hMhjVIa5DIT7yATL5YDgCQ&usg=AFQjCNFJYGo8aN6awI0z39Sr0ygdFhIhPQ&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw
Wanted to show you guys something,
So I just picked a random PMH thread to put this in.
I don't have the real inventors name, some scientist in the 1900's published the PMH
in a journal of the British Royal Society.
We know the device by the name of the man who plagiarized the experiment and made it famous.
So we'll just call it the Leedskalnin PMH...
I was toying around with the two devices on the right side of the picture.
They are both the same, one I removed from its housing.
This is a dc step-up transformer. 1k:1
4.5v@2A
Which translates something close to 4500V @ 2ma (dead short discharge)
I charged the spheres and discharged them several times.
This is 305 (non-magnetic) stainless hollow spheres.
I noticed every few discharges the balls would magnetically "lock"
So I locked them and unplugged it.
These balls are currently under a magnetic loop lock.
I think this proves that an electric flux is present in the loop.
(based on an assumption that such must be present for magnetic induction)
Just wanted to share
I will eat my words now...
There is no electric flux.
No potential, no charge
But I think now I better understand how this thing works.
———————————————————————————-
in fact I have identified the paramagnetic electric state necessary to describe the PMH.
(using modern theory)
When we magnetize a paramagnetic material, and remove our inducing field
the field created in the material will revert to an incoherent (scattered) state.
At the moment our field changes, the paramagnetic material gains a magnetic potential.
A potential magnetic field differential between the coherent (magnetized) state, and the
scattered state.
Through a closed loop, if the magnetic resistance is less than the impedance of the inductive
loop, then the magnetized state IS the lower energy state.
It would require energy to break the magnetic loop to collapse the field.
And in doing so, the field energy is released.
(also means that magnets let off electricity as they die at least on the atomic level)
The induction opposes the change in magnetism.
This holds the material in a particular electric state, similar to ferrous interactions.
The 'two spheres' experiment above can be performed with 3,4 or
any number of spheres, (any shape really, but round surfaces are unique)
even forming them into a complete loop.
Hexagon nuts, or u-shaped metals, toroids, tubular loops, or a single wire.
We can charge them, magnetically, using electrical current (as a conductor)
Or using electrical field (as an inductor) by placing the conductor in the field.
when people say "there is no external magnetic fields"
this is not accurate. With sensitive equipment, magnetic poles can be detected.
However, most of field remains within the conductor.
when one considers the inverse of the inductive constant of the material
we see this system behaves exactly as Maxwell said it would.
I believe someone a little better equipped than myself could easily use this
as the basis for a magnetic capacitor (doc brown would be proud)
The stored magnetic energy, when the circuit is opened, induces an electric field.
when the circuit is closed, it is a capacitor in the magnetic domain.
It is integrable using the magnetic impedance and magnetic inductance.
(1/H) to find the magnetic (flux) charge value
discharge follows modern electrical theory.
If we consider the situation of 3 fields, in any configuration,
Two magnetic poles oppose one another, and act as a magnetic diode,
preventing a closed loop. (Or all 3 fields could oppose)
Unless we introduce a paramagnetic interface, to form a (capacitive)
secondary dipole [magnetic resistor?]
Example: the inactive dipoles in the tri-force.
the steel balls form dipoles within to allow both magnets
to be attracted to the metal.
Now, if this material were a ring or toroid,
and the magnetic currents were all directed to the ring...
(maybe the ring could be triangular in shape)
the space in the center would have an extremely intense magnetic field
and when the circuit is broken, all of that flux could then be directed into
an inductor. (which makes time travel possible?)
If we can compact a pmh to a small device,
We have the ability to store energy, in the form of magnetic capacitance.
this can pave the way for entirely new types of megneto-electrical conversion
technology, and types of devices that are otherwise not conceivable.
Our theory of induction needs to be modified to include the other state.
The other condition of no electric flux. (when all of the flux is magnetic)
When magnetic saturation is at a maximum, and reluctance is in equilibrium
with impedance. This is a second low-energy state of the system.
A small change in magnetic field is resisted by the material and when removed,
the material returns to the magnetized state.
This is much different from our standard conception of paramagnetics.
In fact it is the mathematical inversion.
And is present in Maxwells equations.
We don't consider this condition because there is nowhere to apply it.
(except in the pmh)
But now we can.
The Lorentz force opposes the collapse of the magnetic field.
Locking it into orientation.
Over time, this can physically alter the magnetic properties of a material.
For example, the non-magnetic 305-stainless steel balls in the above photo
After being left in a magnetic loop of 6 large balls, overnight
All 6 of the test balls are now "paramagnetic" and become magnetized in a magnetic field.
While the control balls, which were not placed in a PMH loop, remain in their non-magnetic state.
This occurs in all materials, wood, paper, plastics, etc. (provided the loop strength is sufficient)
This discovery was made many years ago by David Lambright, on accident, while experimenting
with the optical diffraction properties of the PMH external field.
His research showed that low-strength magnetic fields can alter the diffraction angle and polarization
of light through air (to my knowledge no vacuum experiments were done)
Upon completion of one experiment, an aluminum spacer was found to be paramagnetic.
This led to many experiments involving nearly every obtainable material.
Further discoveries show that the non-magnetic state is the precursor to the paramagnetic state,
and the paramagnetic state is the precursor to the magnetic state.
By placing any material into a PMH-loop, of specific intensity, the magnetic properties of the
material can be altered. And the process is reversible by reversing polarities.
In the early stages of this technology, a theory was proposed
that tiny metallic particles may be transferred from the paramagnetic
material, imbedded into the non-magnetic material, by the extreme magnetic
force in the loop.
This theory was discredited by the fact that the material developed areas of
paramagnetism outside the points of physical contact.
This led me to Faraday and Maxwell's equations.
and the secondary stable magnetic state of materials.
(magnetization)
The same force that stabilizes ferromagnetism,
is responsible for the magnetic lock through the PMH loop.
The geometry of the magnetic path can take any shape.
We can send the magnetic loop down a paramagnetic wire to lock
a material far away.
In this manner, magnetic conductivity is similar to electrical conductivity.
The ohmic value equivalent to resistance, in a PMH circuit, is defined as:
Length (of the part of the circuit being analyzed)
Divided by [ permeability of free space * relative permeability of material * area]
Or simply length / magnetic permeability constant of the material * cross-section area.
This must be separated into multiple equations in circuits that change in area (size) of material,
and through any materials that are different throughout the circuit.
Therefore, Ohm's Law is Not violated in the PMH.
I don't know if there is a way to physically test the electrical
conductivity through an active PMH loop without disruption
of the effect.
But the PMH, with a non-magnetic junction in the loop
resembles properties of the Josephson Effect.
And by altering the magnetic susceptibility of a material,
we can control the strength of paramagnetic induction.
Simply put, we can have strong or weak paramagnetism
in samples of the same material.
This is demonstrated by placing consistent samples into
PMH loops of different intensity.
Stronger the PMH field-loop, the greater the magnetic susceptibility.
(there is a time factor involved that I am unclear about)
Further intuitive thought may indicate that we are changing
the permeability constant itself.
If this is the case, this knowledge may lead to the development
of stronger magnets than we thought possible.
it would be interesting to examine the crystalline structure of a metal
before and after PMH manipulation.
Perhaps this would lead to a better understanding.
Deparamagnetized a ball.
https://youtu.be/KAx9UD3pQbE (https://youtu.be/KAx9UD3pQbE)
you can do this by establishing a PMH loop in one direction
allowing it to stay for some time
Then reverse the loop for a longer time
I am still unsure concerning the time constraints, may involve
field intensity as well as the "changing permeability constant"
(if that's what's really going on)
I misspoke near the end, after pulling the paperwork, the steel used
is actually 410, not the 200 series that I say in the video.
But I successfully deparamagnetized it, for the most part.
There is still some mild induction taking place, but nothing of what it once was.
I am fairly sure the stresses placed on the material while the field is looped
is causing changes to the crystalline structure.
Wish I had a way to prove or disprove that.... electron microscope?
Don't have one but I may know someone who has access to one.
What I am doing here, is said to not be possible, by the makers of the stainless.
You can do this yourself.
You don't have to use a high-current spark like I am using here, this can be done with
coils in the normal PMH manner.
The DC step-up converter I use here is just so I can have a portable source.
Also I like that I can send current directly through the conductor,
I probably won't go back to the Leedskalnin coil setup.
Unless I need a really strong loop.
Ok so, after talking with my biologist with the microscope,
He says he can't do what I need.
And sent me to a materials physics lab that has an x-ray machine
that can be used on metals.
The process is very expensive and they told me my sample has to
be a specific size for their machine.
That would mean making a piece specifically designed to be tested.
And two tests at 3500 a pop is like 7 G's just for my own curiosity....
I'm gonna leave that to the magneticians than actually "need" to know.
At this point I have to just assume that the field-loop alters the crystalline
structure, because according to the current model, that is what gives the
metal its' magnetic properties. (in most cases)
does this mean that the structure itself can be governed by magnetic field
strength and orientation?
If so, could it be that the atomic feedback mechanism creates frequency
specific responses to the field, and forms shape similar to sonic structuring?
Hmm, this is a lot to think about.
One magnetic theory proposes that since the magnetic moments of each
individual atomic/molecular dipole are out of phase with those nearby,
the frequencies cancel each other out, so there is no vibration.
Then expands into face-relation geometry of the crystals.
But if the geometry is a function of field components, one would assume
there must be at least one net (internal) oscillation.
Otherwise, we could sum the entire magnetic situation into a short equation
that resembles our 3 phase model of matter.
That's too "simple".... someone other than me would have figured that out by now.
Given that experiments thus far show no fail-state with known solids,
we could be safe to assume that frozen liquids can also be made magnetic.
if I can magnetize ice, then by default, I can magnetize structured water.
So the real question is......
Can I structure water, using magnetism?
My next experiment along these lines will be to include a volume of water into a loop
and test for the presence of an exclusion-zone.
Because we are above absolute 0 (and the new abs-0 by a new theory)
but below Tc
We must use the Brillouin function to analyze the magnetization.
The reduction of this equation tells me that there must be
A change in temperature in the PMH.
More specifically, it should 'cool down' when it locks
And 'heat up' when it unlocks.
Does anyone's know of experiments done along these lines?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 03, 2018, 09:31:46 AM
Because we are above absolute 0 (and the new abs-0 by a new theory)
but below Tc
We must use the Brillouin function to analyze the magnetization.
The reduction of this equation tells me that there must be
A change in temperature in the PMH.
More specifically, it should 'cool down' when it locks
And 'heat up' when it unlocks.
Does anyone's know of experiments done along these lines?
I will tell you something; once I magnetized small PMH (using AA battery) and heat it using gas stove, IT DID NOT DEMAGNETIZES and so i found it strange ..PMH shows that magnetism is more concentrated inside the metal that outside and in loop, nothing special yet it still amazes me. I planning to heat it to very high temps soon.
There shouldn't be any real change until it reaches the curie temp
Which for iron and steel is around 770C
But when it locks/unlocks there "should be" a change in temperature in the metal.
As a result of the change in internal magnetic moments.
At least, such is present in the mathematics.
(if there is an austenite->martensite transition)
I have yet to prove that last part....
But detecting a change in temperature would be a huge clue.
Found a reference to this stuff from the 60's
Not sure how it never made mainstream magnetics
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786436208213848 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786436208213848)
Smoky
noticed a magnetic capacitor being pondered
member Smudge [Cyril]shared these musings recently.
respectfully
Chet K
PS
the magnetic battery considerations [first PDF
and the magnetic battery jpg below
Yeah I built a really nice looking piece of hardware
and when i hooked it up , the cheap glue broke down
I've rewired it, but it doesn't look near as pretty anymore
Coated in lacquer this time
I'll post it in a little bit, lacquer is still drying.
I'll make a diagram too, showing exactly what I did
(why is a longer story)
The timing on that one seemed perfect, lot of guys building similar things lately
I had specific # of windings, wire lengths, ohmic resistance, etc. in mind
for another purpose, but this one might have several uses now that I see
what others are up to.
little technical mishap.....
Spent about an hour troubleshooting, then realized my transistor is shorted out inside
Not switching at all....
The LEDs light up on the joule thief, which kinda threw me for a minute
I'll have to replace the transistor and go from there.
Basically I have 52 turns, center tap, forming a joule thief
Wrapped around that is 15 bifilar (30 turns) x 5 (150 windings in series)
across a capacitor
And on the outside I wrapped another 15 bifilar (30 turns) ran through a rectifier
as an "output".
It's the same thing as a JT with a secondary output coil
except, instead of ferrite, I have the 5 bifilar series coils and cap
At least that's the goal.
I'll have to wait until I get another transistor before I can play with it
At the request of Ramset
(sorry about the confusion, the guys name is Russell)
Here is his YouTube page
https://www.youtube.com/user/rwg42985 (https://www.youtube.com/user/rwg42985)
I can't vouch for his theories, or anything he says about Ed
As we know, Ed was a con-artist, trained by Robert Ripley.
However, Russ is the leading PMH researcher
Years ahead of everyone else.
Hope this helps.
Smoky2
Been a while since I spoke with Russ, he had been busy with quite a few investigations[Stanley Meyer in particular]
and Now he is working with capacitors I believe ?
Thanks ,
will report back
Ok , so I made an assumption based on something recently
discovered by TinselKoala
when he learned how to magnetize a non-magnetic object.
and I made a little video to show what I did with this assumption.
basically what he discovered was that he could change the magnetization
properties of aluminum by simply sandwiching them between two very
powerful magnets.
This indicated (to me) that, at least some of the effects of the magnetic loop
occur between any two opposite field-sources.
With that in mind, I reverse engineered my theory stated earlier in this thread.
And realized that we can do the same thing with an electromagnetic coil, electric current,
Or permanent magnetism.
And to test this, here is my small PMH
and a magnet
https://youtu.be/gOA_NGvaz8o (https://youtu.be/gOA_NGvaz8o)
This proves that the PMH occurs in nature
by a passing magnetic field
If the loop forms in nature, we have the natural storage of magnetic energy
And subsequent release of electrical and/or magnetic energy
initiated by an outside force that breaks the loop.
The transfer of energy from the outside force
and release of stored magnetic energy are described by the
Lorentz-Maxwell equations:
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Lorentz-Maxwell+Equations (https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Lorentz-Maxwell+Equations)
The "strength" of the magnetic lock as a function of magnetic field strength
through the conductive path of the magnetic loop, if the force required to
initiate the capacitive release of the stored magnetic field.
In essence, the PMH is a magnetic capacitor, with a switch that requires a given force
to release the stored magnetic energy.
The difference between this and a capacitive inductor, is that the magnetic field is stored
in the atomic matrix of the material. Making it "quasi-permanent", and as long as the magnetic
saturation conditions of said material are not affected by an outside field, it remains this way infinitely.
The breaking-force is often seen as a system loss, but this is merely a technicality
As we gain the same force when we create the lock.
The in/out is net=0 for storing and releasing the energy. (minus friction, etc. at the switch)
so the losses in stored energy are somewhat similar to the inductor
in that they are mainly comprised of the losses of inductance and impedance
used in modern electrical theory.
The advantage then becomes, the duration of storage.
To store the same energy in an LC circuit for long periods of time,
results in 'bleeding' and other emanations of energy, which limit
the long term storage of the electromagnetic energy.
The energy interactions in the atomically stored magnetic field, at this point in the research
are photonic in nature, as the discernible magnetic interactions with the environment are
so small as to be considered insignificant.
As it pertains to the photonic interactions, creates a polarization effect on incoming light
perpendicular to the magnetic field.
Under light of below extreme intensities, is it assumed that any inertial effects of polarization,
are sufficiently sustained by atomic interactions alone, and thus does not decrease the intensity
of the looped-field over time.
And if left undisturbed, remains infinitely.
The polarization effect can be observed with loops of high intensity, viewed from an angle
90-degrees to both the magnetic field and and incoming perpendicular light.
by arranging an array of multiple loops in the line of sight
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle can be demonstrated
as the polarization effect diminishes with each subsequent loop
placed in the line of sight.
This has profound impacts on our view of the universe,
as it pertains to "age" or "lifespan" of the universe as a whole.
Energy can be stored for an infinite amount of time, in loops.
A ring of iron dust, penetrated by a meteor
for instance
May release an unknown quantity of electromagnetic energy.
and the task becomes difficult to know "how much" is stored
in it from almost any outside perspective.
There may be a way to discern, through degree of polarization,
and point of photonic saturation of the polarizing field
from a predetermined perspective,
and careful observation of polarizing events,
to detect astronomical PMH magnetic loops...
(my gift to the astronomers)
This may have further application in the fields of dark matter / dark energy
Ok so....
I've gathered some more information about this
magnetization issue.
Had a long conversation with a professor from UT
Who studies metamagnetism in natural Garnets,
Colbalt-Al alloys, and Lanthanide-AluminoSilicates
He assured me that the crystalline structure is NOT
altered by this process!
My assumptions in this area were completely off.
The way he describes the process, is that clumps of atoms
align their magnetic domains 'loosely' into groups.
this changes the magnetic properties of the material.
The crystalline structure is a physical property of the metal
and for aluminum, is Face-centered-cubic (austenitic)
whether in a metamagnetic state or a non-magnetic state.
He also stated that it is not likely for the stainless steel to
be undergoing austentic/martensitic transformation.
But that it is likely that metamagnetism is affecting the chromium
and nickel, while the iron and carbon in the alloy should remain unaffected.
But that by reordering the magnetic domains in the chromium, alters
the magnetic properties of the iron.
The steel is actually still austenitic, even though it is magnetic.
So here, is the first representation of ferromagnetism I have heard
that goes outside the crystalline structure of the magnet.
This is described by This guy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Clifton_Stoner (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Clifton_Stoner)
Who, for some reason was excluded from university physics.
interesting stuff.
So apparently, while the crystalline structure can affect magnetic properties
It is not the inherent function of ordered spin domains.
But just one situation that can lead to it.
So, to be clear:
I was incorrect with my assumption that this effect somehow "alters"
the crystalline structure of the metal.
It only affects magnetic ordering.
Now, I want to present something else, that is rather profound.
The pmh loop can be oriented in different physical dimensions
with respect to the magnetic field being "locked".
For instance, we can lock a loop oriented axially, to the field.
If you have a field with N/S oriented vertically
then a loop can be established horizontally around the field.
And the magnetization of this loop will be 90-degrees to the direction
of the loop.
In other words, the field doesn't have to be in the direction of the loop.
it will lock in a variety of orientations.
Here is a guy showing perpendicular lock
using an off-the-shelf electromagnet.
https://youtu.be/VlmXE5Evygo (https://youtu.be/VlmXE5Evygo)
Here's a guy magnetizing gold, with the pmh loop
And an electric charge
Similar to my hand-held 'loop maker'
But with a much higher voltage
This guy uses a Ban De Graff to initiate the loop
through a steel plate
With 2 gold samples in the loop
https://youtu.be/zOLu6ftHtRY (https://youtu.be/zOLu6ftHtRY)
Here we see the loop can be sustained without the keeper
by separating the residual-field into 2 components
Each acting as their own keeper, to the respective pole
For those interested in the original source material
As I have said before, Ed was a fraud, and a scammer
He plagiarized the scientific work of others for his own
purposes, and to lure crowds to his castle.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/108001?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (https://www.jstor.org/stable/108001?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
Many of his other experiments are found here as well.
In fact, the British Royal Society is the source of all of Ed's material
Including his "secret of the Egyptians", which he was not lying when he
said he left the secret by his moon fountain.
Just ask the Lit-Lik bird....
The secret is still there, in plain sight.
I propose a test, to ascertain the existence of dark energy and dark matter.
Present in the PMH, and similar (natural) magnetic loops, found in astronomical sources.
This test shall be the careful and precise weighing of the PMH,
in both conditions (locked and unlocked)
If so determined, that there be a difference in discernible mass
This is to be considered the source of dark energy and dark matter.
Specifically in the form of stored magnetic energy.
This is decidedly the proposed test, based on information presented by
Mr. Watkins (inventor of the PMH), Michael Faraday, and Augustin-Jean Fresnel
And the energy to mass derivation presented by Albert Einstein.
I planned to conduct this test, but I stopped myself
In theory, a sustained inductive effect should increase the internal energy
of the metal, thereby increasing its mass.
This is distinct from permanent magnetization, which does not change the mass.
However, a bit of preliminary math tells me that the difference in mass
would be something to the tune of 1 x 10^14 Joules per gram
so to have anything measurable, would take a LOT of energy
like a PMH the size of a house, and locked by the mains.
The problem then becomes the accuracy of scales that large,
and how to move the chunk of metal onto them.
there may be some middle ground, which could include as large of a PMH
as could be feasible, and a very very accurate scale.
Astronomical PMH loops could easily attain high energy levels
which would skew the equation into an appreciable value of 'magnetic mass'
The issue then becomes finding such a magnetic loop, in a region where
Dark Matter should exist.
A little interesting observation I made
The magnitude depends a little on the core materials used
But I will describe the effect
Pre-note:
At this time I do not know the exact value of 'stored magnetism'
being lost here, as I don't currently have a tool to measure it.
When we saturate a core to be locked:
not all of the magnetism holds
The lock is actually sustained at a value less than saturation
(my best guess, deterministically, is ~60-75% retention +/-)
undoubtedly some function of H/a^2L
[edit: for clarity, the L used here is length/a, in whole number units]
[and a is (pi)(1/2 wire diameter)^2]
acting at the atomic level, to sustain the magnetic capacitance
for some reason, about a third of the magnetism leaks out
when we remove the locking field.
this can be picked up on the coils
(one of the determining indicators of the approximate value)
This is complicated by any excess electromagnetism from the coil field
as this too will leak back out when switched off
The exact rebound of the core-flux is most accurately observed when
the input is tuned very near the minimum to achieve full saturation
If this function can be identified, we will be very close to a mathematical
representation of the flux capacitor
Repeatable experiment:
Place a resistance in series to the magnetic loop
Produced is heat (very small unless the device is large and magnetic strength high)
AND
a detectable magnetic field OUTSIDE of the PMH.
Lining up an extensive series of experiments with PMH's
(Locked Loop, and without the keeper)
But before i begin, im reviewing my knowledge set
Re watching videos,
Going back through my discussions with David Lambright and his work
as well as my own previous experiments.
Cataloging the unknowns, clarifying questions that need answering before i begin.
First, does the strength of the applied field affect the strength of the loop?
To answer this i prepared 17 materials in 20 loops, mostly solid loops but a few were assemblies
And locked them under a range of (permanent) magnetic conditions
There are two cases:
One where the applied field induces less than saturation in the material
And the other is when the applied field saturates the material
Many tests were done, but for logging data 1/4" soft iron rod bent into a circle, ~ 6" diameter was used here. Gap distance ~ 1/8"
Unsaturated Condition: weaker magnetic fields produce a weaker lock
ranges of measurement (by breaking the keeper by adding g weights)
0.5 - 3 g
Magnets used were rubber ferrite (frigerator magnets, magnetic strips etc)
Saturated Condition: no change in magnetic strength, 7g break point remained consistent
Magnets used: ceramic ferrite, cobalt, neos of various shapes and sizes
Conclusion: above the saturation point of the material, strength of the magnetic lock is determined by material properties alone.
A second question came up during these tests:
Concerning the length (and in some cases complexity) of the loops with respect to the inducing field.
It seems a small magnet can do big things. But this should be looked into
The primary question is, of course, what material, size of loop and resistance value(s) would be appropriate to begin tests of that nature?
is there any electric induction involved? Or is this a purely 'magnetic current'?
Unfortunately i have never came across the original British Royal Society publication that shows the scientific interpretation of this. So all i have to go on is what ed wrote and what can be observed. (If anyone has a link to that plz post below)
For the Lambright thermal emissions to occur, there must be a flow of energy through the resistive components. Why this doesnt weaken the magnetic lock is outside the scope of my knowledge.
Maybe this could be deciphered with careful application of a certain atomic constant, but thats for someone else to worry about.
at first i was just curious as to wether or not the magnetism would flow through the resistor to the opposite leg and back into the loop
but now that i know its related to David's research,
I'm wondering if his assemblies cause a form of resistance because of the way the field winds around
Ed wrote (and left evidence of) sending this down a wire.....
it goes down the resistor, thats basically already doing it
But how long can we make the circuit? Will the iron just keep magnetizing its neighbor infinitely as long as the loop is connected back to itself?
Or does it fade out at some distance or length of ferrous wire?
Iron wire and possibly some alternatives, but i think steel is off the table
I had some steel wire that stuck to a magnet, but didnt loop worth a squat
and maintained residual magnetism at spots not down the length
What material is best for this? Probably one that doesnt hold magnetism when the field goes away?
Can a magnetic circuit be made to do work?
These and other questions, i will experiment with and attempt to find some answers.
Two areas of exploration may include:
Use of feedback mechanisms
to detect 'magnetic current'
and a path of curiosity:
when overlapping transparent images of 2 book covers as Ed. Hints to us
The device resembles a circuit shows in electrical diagrams of the Ankh / djed devices of Egypt
Wherein a lodestone was set to vibrate through 2 opposing coils to a spark-gap oscillator.
Same basic function we imagine from Tony Stark's arch reactor
The electrical changes that would make to the PMH are as follows:
Instead of two coils, each of them is comprised of two coils.
As a transformer. Ed clearly shows these as current transformers
Meaning the secondary has less windings than the primary (voltage step down)
And these are wires in series on one end of the loop, and through a spark gap on the other ends.
Also to note in this diagram Ed has both ends of the first two coils wired in series on both ends making a closed circuit (short)
@sm0ky2,
I like what you're doing with the Leedskalnin PMH. . . I hope you keep posting your testing and resulting discoveries.[/font][/size]
So we can create loops through resistors and diodes (diodes dont seem so be doing anything)
I assume it is because the magnetic components are close enough together the field passes through the non magnetic parts in the center of the component.
Transistors seem to be the same, except you get a splitting, meaning 1 line in, 2 lines out
don't have a direct test for this yet but i assume the magnetism is divided mostly equally
(Gauss Divider?) hmm
Also i noticed that if you have small/thin parts like iron wire, you want to sink it to a massive ferrous material at the far end to draw it out
This extends the length of the current loop
I guess i would call it a (Gauss Amplifier?)
This can be done by connecting in series an electronics/jewlery ferrite
Or simply a dense piece of iron or steel.
The more in try to integrate Ed's physics with our own....
The more i see its place.
I believe the currents are what we view as "field lines"
Just at a deeper level of understanding, and possibly new uses for this knowledge
As is pertains to (PMH) magnetic loops in electromagnetism:
Our current science studies this phenomenon as: self-sustaining magnetism
IT's existence is still not mainstream accepted, but much research is being done
A common question that people ask is:
why dont we use PMH loops instead of traditional electromagnets?
Well, we do. (when we can), however electromagnetic coils are not material dependent.
Where-as the max strength of a PMH IS.
So the limitations are based on how much we need to lift, not the comparative efficiencies.
The PMH is superior in terms of efficiency, only requiring a brief pulse to turn it on/off
instead of constant current to maintain the field.
But the electromagnet is superior in strength, we can just crank up the juice.
As it turns out,
David Lambright was not the first person to discover this.
It was actually Faraday himself!
And the effect was named after him.
I think this should put the question to rest,
About wether Ed's PMH is or isn't in motion.
What do you think?
https://youtu.be/UFEVvsbvlkA (https://youtu.be/UFEVvsbvlkA)