Overunity.com Archives

New topic for some members who want to contribute to this topic.

Regards, Stefan.

Great topic title. Much more titillating than, say....

"Come put on a show of personality conflicts, squabbling, bickering, and other reality show style drama to increase site traffic and keep the forum chugging along!"

Where there is conflict, hey, at least there's energy. 


TS

I asked Stefan to create this topic because on this forum there is an underlying deficiency in basic knowledge about how magnets and electromagnets work.

Many people here are working with and measuring magnets and electromagnets and are misinterpreting the information they are gathering about them. In order to interpret that data correctly, you first need to have a good understanding of the fundamentals about magnetic fields. The aim of this thread will be to present the fundamentals and have an open forum discussion about them.

A number of myths and misconceptions will also be listed and an attempt made to properly address each as they are presented.

Here are a number of myths and misconceptions to start:

1. Conventional permanent magnets and coils/inductors (cored or not cored) inherently exhibit a Bloch wall as part of their existence, usually as either a dead or transition zone in the middle of the magnet or coil.

2. Permanent magnets exhibit a neutral zone in the middle where there is either a very weak or no field at all.

3. When I move my Hall probe around my magnet or coil, I see null zones in my readings as they go from +'ve to -'Ve on the scale, therefore this proves that there are Bloch walls and neutral zones in magnets and coils.

4. The field of a magnet is stronger at its "poles" compared to the field strength at the magnet's center.

5. The traditional depiction of a magnet with half of it shaded blue (north pole) and the other half shaded red (south pole) is an accurate representation of how a magnet really works and how the field lines run through and around it.

Points 1. - 5. above are all false and incorrect.

The first 4 myths and misconceptions could easily be cleared up if one were to first clear up myth number 5. But let's deal with the "Bloch wall" misunderstanding first.

First and foremost, Bloch walls can only exist inside ferromagnetic material, so that immediately eliminates air and copper.

Bloch walls CAN exist inside ferromagnetic materials such as iron and strontium ferrite (ceramic magnets) for example. They exist when inside the ferromagnetic material, there are adjacent magnetic domains that are oriented in different directions. This happens in an unmagnetized piece of iron for example (the domains are random), or when a contiguous piece of ferromagnetic material has purposely been magnetized in more than one direction in different sections of the material.

Note that Bloch walls typically do not exist inside the ferromagnetic core of a coil. The core is typically situated "inside" the coil winding, so the core's magnetic domains are all polarized in the same direction. See second picture of coil field orientation.

Let's now look at myth number 5.

This simplistic depiction of a magnet leads us to believe that there is no field (or that there is a "Bloch wall") right in the middle where the color changes from red to blue. It also makes us believe that there are two polarities of magnetism. This is simply incorrect. Magnets really should be illustrated with one solid color and a single arrow from one end to the other (See attachments and link to Hyperphysics). Why? Because this is actually how they work.

There is no discontinuity of field in the center of a magnet, or solenoid for that matter. A simple test if you have a Hall probe is to take two cylindrical magnets and stack them together. Insert the Hall probe between the two magnets right in the center and measure the field strength. Is it zero? Is it as strong if not stronger than what you measure at either end of the magnet?

I highly recommend this Hyperphysics page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/elemag.html) be studied until clearly understood.

You couldn't have started this topic yourself, Poynt99?

Just a head's up...

The archaic field model you have displayed fails even a 5th grade level examination.  One has only to bring two N poles and two S poles into close proximity to dispel the notion of quanta flow in one direction.  We are to believe, with as yet ZERO plausible explanation anywhere to be offered from the "halls of science" that two N poles brought to close proximity would not exhibit greater opposing force than two S poles brought to the same opposing positions?  What with all those "virtual photons" being ejected at relativistic speeds from only one end of a magnet, one should think that some appreciable differences could be observed!

Yet, what do we find upon close examination with simple tests?  Such a curious incongruity should have been properly explained long ago, one would imagine.  Yet, I have seen no published data that sufficiently accounts for such disrepancy. 

Try it yourself, bring two S poles into contact with one another.  Once contact is made and opposition force is retained, the doorway to the old thinking is slammed shut.  How does one compare the data obtained with the results one finds from flipping the magnets and doing the same with the N poles?

Even simply levitating two ring magnets on a pencil N to N and S to S disproves the old field model.

I have done tests on numerous occasions and find the old field model to be incorrect for various reasons.


TS

TS:

That's called leading yourself down a garden path.  Your posting is hard to decipher but you seem to be implying that there will be a difference in force between a N-N opposition as compared to a S-S opposition.  That's not true.

Who said anything about "virtual photons being ejected at relativistic speeds?"  Who said anything about a "quanta flow in one direction?"  There is no flow of anything!  It's just more garden-pathing on your part.

You can see how problematic it can be for an experimenter to "half learn" something and then tack on the crazy myths and beliefs that you see on the forums.

You have it set in your mind that "the field model is incorrect."  Then with this belief fixated in your mind, you do some experiments to "confirm" what you want to believe.  Hence the name of this thread, "Magnet Myths and Misconceptions."

Remember, there is no such thing as "North" and "South" so your discussion about differences between the two is moot.  Those are just artificial constructs that we have created to make it easier to talk about magnetic fields in practical applications.

The solution for you is to keep climbing up the learning curve and Poynt is a great communicator and teacher.  To do that effectively you have to get rid of that "garden pathing" crutch that is hampering you.

Ah, MH and right on cue.  And as predictably neophytic as ever.


And so it begins....


I'll leave you to it then.


:D


P.S.  If you guys can muster up even half the excitement as the TA vortex extravaganza, then I and my popcorn supply will hold out nicely.

Sorry there TS but I am sensing that you are backing out.

Who says mass produced magnets have perfect symmetry in their polarization when they are manufactured?  Does the magnet manufacturer actually go to all of the trouble and expense to do that?  What about all of the experimentation done on the forums with magnets?  For example, one end of a magnet wrapped in a coil that pulses?  Can't external disturbances like that knock some of the magnetic domains in different directions if the disturbances are strong enough?

There is your explanation for your asymmetry when you compare N-N opposition vs. S-S opposition.  Ah, but I am assuming that never occurred to you.  I have never seen that posted anywhere.  Likewise, for all these years you have probably looked at "North" and "South" as separate and distinct entities, when in fact they don't even exist.

Thought experiment:  You walk into a large empty room and there is a single vertical wire in the center of the room going from the floor to the ceiling.  There is one amp of current flowing through the wire.  You have your trusty compass in your hand.  Where is the "North" pole in this setup?  Where is the "South" pole in this setup?

That's an example of you being a neophyte.  So my advice to you is to listen to what Poynt has to say and do some follow-up research on your own.

Quote from: TechStuf on September 28, 2014, 04:08:39 PM
You couldn't have started this topic yourself, Poynt99?

I did indeed ask Stefan to create this topic for me, well for everyone actually.  ;)

Quote from: poynt99 on September 28, 2014, 06:34:21 PM
I did indeed ask Stefan to create this topic for me, well for everyone actually.  ;)

Darren:

Great topic and, I have a question.  About 8 years ago, for reasons unknown to me, I decided to superglue two neo mag disks together with their opposing poles facing each other.  (I can't recall if it was NN or SS, or if I even checked)  These were very strong magnets and resisted my attempts force them to do this.  I finally put the glue on the surfaces and worked them together and placed them into a vice until the glue cured.  The following day, I checked out the "new" magnet I created and was shocked to learn that all I had was a thicker neo with a north and south pole.  Nothing else was different about it at all.  I don't really remember what I was hoping to see but, this was not it.  I was probably trying to make a magnet with 2 poles that were the same. To make matters worse, a few days later I dropped it on the floor and the disks separated.  Each disk had a normal north and south pole.  I just assumed that when glued together over night, somehow the poles realigned or something.  But this did not seem to be the case.

I have always wondered why this was over the years so, I just thought I might ask over here.  If I did not explain what I did clear enough, let me know and I will try again.

Thanks,

Bill

Bill,

My first question would be, when the magnets separated are you quite sure both were at their original orientation of N to S? Or did one flip polarities?

I've glued two of those radio shack flexible magnets (about 1/8" thick) back to back and eventually, one had a magnetic "bubble" (a round zone of opposite polarity to the rest of the magnet) in it when I separated them later.

I have worked with magnetizing guitar pickup magnets (Alnico) and also slightly demagnetizing them by bringing a neodymium close to them. If you are not careful and get too close, the alnico magnet will suddenly flip poles and be fully magnetized in the opposite direction.

What about origin of magnetic field?

An idle electron produces only electric field but when it starts moving it produces magnetic field.  What makes a moving electron to produce magnetic field? Does a moving electron produce both elctric field and magnetic field or only magnetic field?

A permanent magnet creates magnetic field around it for infinite time without losing energy of its electrons. Does it mean that magnetic field is created out of nothing?  Does a moving electron dig out energy from vaccuum (ether) to create magnetic field around it?

Why should a moving electron produce magnetic field?

Quote from: poynt99 on September 28, 2014, 09:15:39 PM
Bill,

My first question would be, when the magnets separated are you quite sure both were at their original orientation of N to S? Or did one flip polarities?

I've glued two of those radio shack flexible magnets (about 1/8" thick) back to back and eventually, one had a magnetic "bubble" (a round zone of opposite polarity to the rest of the magnet) in it when I separated them later.

I have worked with magnetizing guitar pickup magnets (Alnico) and also slightly demagnetizing them by bringing a neodymium close to them. If you are not careful and get too close, the alnico magnet will suddenly flip poles and be fully magnetized in the opposite direction.

Good question.  I have no idea as I never thought to mark them n/s either before, or after my little experiment.  When I said that they had their "normal" N/S poles once they came apart, it is easily possible that one of them switched polarity.  I have tons of neos around here now, I could try it once again and, this time, keep track of the poles.  It would be interesting to see if that is what happened.

Thanks,

Bill

Poynt99, MH.... Bravo!

Let me put in a couple of cents worth here as well.

Magnetic field lines have no real existence. They are like contour lines on a terrain topographical map, or isobars on a weather map. That is, they are mathematical fictions that we use to focus upon details of the underlying phenomenon: elevation in the case of the topo map, pressure and wind with isobars, and the _direction and strength of the field gradient_ for magnetism and electrism. (I just made that word up to denote the electric field phenomenon.)

The concept of the "field line" has a rigorous mathematical description that permits us to talk coherently about features of the underlying phenomenon. Calling that underlying phenomenon a "field" simply describes the fact that there is a region in space where test particles tend to move in certain ways. The magnetic field lines are a map of this tendency of probe particles to move and are a rigorous mathematical statement of how they move, that can be used in calculations. And since we can't explain these motions without the concept of force, we can talk about, define, calculate and use the force that is moving these test particles, using the concept of "lines of force" or "field lines".

You can even use a primitive analog indicator to approximate the results of these calculations: mix some iron filings in glycerine to make a ferrofluid, or sprinkle some on a piece of paper over a magnet. Or use the same system in a solid state: the green magnet-field-viewing film.

Just as there are no isobars, but there is a wind... just as there are no contour lines, but there are mountains... there are no field lines in reality, even though the "field" itself exists.

TK:

Yes indeed that's a great point about the myth of "field lines."  Many times I have read postings making references to "breaking field lines" where the poster was talking about literal magnetic field lines.  There is even a "paper" that is floating out there that is all written around the concept of breaking literal "field lines."

Another myth that should bite the dust!  <thump> <thump> <thump>

MileHigh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhiAIsJCS9Y
(watch, read description and comments)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic-core_memory

http://www.mqitechnology.com/downloads/articles/MagnetizingGuide.pdf


Aaaaand.... discuss.

It is a particle flow

There's nothing to it,just read Ken's books.
                    John.

Do you have a link John?

Here is the  link and the thread:

https://ia902502.us.archive.org/31/items/magnetism1small/magnetism1small.pdf

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17560-uncovering-missing-secrets-magnetism-92-pages-free-new-book.html

Of course... nobody has ever been able to design a working device based on these "missing secrets" that isn't fully covered by standard EM theory. Meanwhile, that same standard theory allows us to perform amazing feats of engineering, manipulating entities that the author of the "missing secrets" text claims do not even exist. All the while, typing away on his electronic digital computer that was designed 100 percent using the theory he says is wrong, and works by carefully channeling the behaviour of things he says aren't real.
It's too bad we don't use CRTs any more... the refutation of all his postulates would be staring him in the face whenever he sits down.

Hey, that RWG  Ed Leedskalnin trick looks just right for a "Trash harvester".


What does Ed Leedskalnin's "Impulse Magnetization Effect" have to do with Tesla's early wireless transmitter pictured below? This transmitter broadcasted a magnet wave thirty miles from downtown New York to West Point. It transmitted power along with information. The top portion of the radio contained a spark gap that created a violent "Field Collapse", similar to the one Russ produces with his one wire coil, from the battery below.

Here's a schematic of an early spark gap transmitter:

What would happen if we use two identical clip leads, and form two one loop coils? We loop one lead so the clips are positioned in close adjacency like a spark gap. We run the wire through the hole in the board and assemble the six nuts like Russ did. Now, we take second clip lead across the room to a battery, loop it and spark a field collapse. What are the chances the spark will jump the gap in the second wire and lock the nuts with the same Ed Leedskalnin "Impulse Magnetization Effect" at a distance?

Quiz time.

If a steel ball is place near a magnet on a flat table,why is it attracted to the magnet?. I mean dosnt the steel ball carry the field of the magnetic pole it's closest to,dose it not become an extension of the magnet/. If so,then why do two like poles attract.

"In 1888 physicist Heinrich Hertz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Hertz) set out to scientifically verify Maxwell's predictions. Hertz used a tuned spark gap transmitter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmitter) and a tuned spark gap detector (consisting of a loop of wire connected to a small spark gap) located a few meters away. In a series of UHF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHF) experiments, Hertz verified that electromagnetic waves were being produced by the transmitter. When the transmitter sparked, small sparks also appeared across the receiver's spark gap, which could be seen under a microscope".


What would it take to recreate this spark gap transmitter reciever of Heinrich Hertz, to transmit and receive Leedskalnin strength locking force? A larger battery perhaps?


Look at Hertz's first receiver below. It's just a one wire loop with a spark gap, just like Russ's Impulse Magnetizer coil:


I may be, once again, reinventing the remote car door lock!

Synchro1, you are polluting what is supposed to be an educational thread with junk fantasy postings.

Quote from: Newton II on September 28, 2014, 10:06:47 PM

A permanent magnet creates magnetic field around it for infinite time without losing energy of its electrons. Does it mean that magnetic field is created out of nothing?  Does a moving electron dig out energy from vaccuum (ether) to create magnetic field around it?

Why should a moving electron produce magnetic field?

Have a look at this experiment.

http://www.overunity.com/11016/eliminate-lenzs-current/msg290688/#msg290688


When a non-insulated 'spring' carrying current is compressed, number of turns becomes one.  Hence one turn has to produce tremendous
current to conserve the flux.    But a very high current cannot be maintained at low voltage. So, it has to dig energy from vaccuum to conserve the flux!

In the above experiment if flux is conserved then energy is not conserved and if energy is conversed, then flux is not conserved!   Nature
prefers what?  Conservetion of flux or energy?


http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse


In a EMP weapon a current carrying coil is melted by making an explosion which makes number of turns in the coil zero resulting in sudden collapse of magnetic field which in turn creates severe electromagnetic pulses in the atmosphere.

EMP weapon produces EM pulses in an uncontrolled and vigorous manner.   In the above experiment you can produce controlled EM pulses.

  A magnetic field that is changing will cause charged particles to change their position.  Charged particles that are changing their position will cause a changing magnetic field.  That is why motors that claim to run using permanent magnets are mythical.  Please note the words CHANGE versus PERMANENT.  To create a permanent magnet take a conductor and cool it down until there is no thermal energy left in it.   You have increased the order within the conductor.   As they do when they manufacture a permanent magnet.  Now move your cold wire near a source of heat.  As  the chaos increases in the cold wire the magnetic field changes.  If there is a nearby conductor a current will be induced in the conductor.  It is simply the transfer of order from body to body.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-M07N4a6-Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-M07N4a6-Y)

(Compare this demonstration to some of the "demonstrations" and "experiments" that have been presented concerning magnetic fields on another thread.)

Hi,

what a fruitful discussion.
We all got bluffed at a certain point from these iron filing experimenters kits.....
Another typical myth or misconception - is the idea that an iron core "concentrates" the magnetic field lines(!!) of a coil - and thus intensifies the magnetic flux.
The truth is that the field from the coil stays the same - and the resulting flux is a superposition of the magnetized (by induction)field of the core and the coil.
Even if its often not that transparent - the links to the electric domain persist. The embedded charge of a dielectrica gets its orientation by electric induction and the increased flux  is a superposition of the originating flux and the flux of the induced dielectrica.
Both dielectrica and permeabilita are non-homogenous.... which explains why a cap is never empty..... and a coil needs few current to be neutral....

rgds.

Quote from: fritz on October 01, 2014, 04:52:35 PM

Another typical myth or misconception - is the idea that an iron core "concentrates" the magnetic field lines(!!) of a coil - and thus intensifies the magnetic flux.

Please have a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN6mFr7veF4&feature=youtu.be

If flux is not concentrated in the iron ball, how it will stick to the steel rod?   The concentration of flux or density of flux depends on lot
of factors like size, shape, length, area, type of magnetic material etc.

Why do you use 'air gaps'  in solid cores?

Quote from: fritz on October 01, 2014, 04:52:35 PM
Hi,

what a fruitful discussion.
We all got bluffed at a certain point from these iron filing experimenters kits.....
Another typical myth or misconception - is the idea that an iron core "concentrates" the magnetic field lines(!!) of a coil - and thus intensifies the magnetic flux.
The truth is that the field from the coil stays the same - and the resulting flux is a superposition of the magnetized (by induction)field of the core and the coil.
Even if its often not that transparent - the links to the electric domain persist. The embedded charge of a dielectrica gets its orientation by electric induction and the increased flux  is a superposition of the originating flux and the flux of the induced dielectrica.
Both dielectrica and permeabilita are non-homogenous.... which explains why a cap is never empty..... and a coil needs few current to be neutral....

rgds.

The words "concentrate", "intensify" are only more specific of the same conception of the word "superposition". Of course, the field lines are only graphic representation of the field.

Quote from: Qwert on October 01, 2014, 11:47:54 PM
The words "concentrate", "intensify" are only more specific of the same conception of the word "superposition". Of course, the field lines are only graphic representation of the field.

What I wanted to point out is the mix up of cause and effect.
"concentrate" is wrong in my opinion - because it would mean that the already existing field is just modified (which is not the case)
"intensified" would be ok for me - because the presence of such permeability intensifies the resulting field. (as long as the ferromagnetic homogenous core has no magnetic bias)
"superposition" would tell me that the resulting observation is always a combination of more than one effect.
If I use a non-homogenous magnetized core - the interaction of coil and core as well as the resulting field cannot be described with "concentration" nor  is it "intensified" in a linear describeable manner.
This is why I think that superposition is the proper concept to explain that - and the resulting field is composed of(=a superposition) of  coil field and core field(as a response of induction from the coil field).

rgds.

Quote from: fritz on October 02, 2014, 07:07:39 AM
What I wanted to point out is the mix up of cause and effect.
"concentrate" is wrong in my opinion - because it would mean that the already existing field is just modified (which is not the case)
"intensified" would be ok for me - because the presence of such permeability intensifies the resulting field. (as long as the ferromagnetic homogenous core has no magnetic bias)
"superposition" would tell me that the resulting observation is always a combination of more than one effect.
If I use a non-homogenous magnetized core - the interaction of coil and core as well as the resulting field cannot be described with "concentration" nor  is it "intensified" in a linear describeable manner.
This is why I think that superposition is the proper concept to explain that - and the resulting field is composed of(=a superposition) of  coil field and core field(as a response of induction from the coil field).

rgds.

This discussion is really about trying to understand magnetic permeability and how it relates to magnets and magnetic fields.  Sometimes it is also called magnetic reluctance.

The complimentary concept for electric fields is permittivity.

Anybody that wants to understand magnets and how they work should research theses two topics and master them.  Again, there are probably thousands and thousands of places online to find more information.  If you are doing experiments with magnets and you don't understand these concepts then you are walking around with your eyes blindfolded bumping into walls.

Here is an example of myths and misconceptions on a place where there is no surprise that this is the case, PESN:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:09:25#Magnetic-like-binding_of_nuts_via_Leedskalnin_PMH (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:09:25#Magnetic-like-binding_of_nuts_via_Leedskalnin_PMH)

Quote, "What makes this "trick" possible is our present lack of sufficient understanding of magnetism and equations/laws to describe it."

There is no author cited, but I will assume that it is Sterling Allen, the man that believed the spoof CGI clip was real where a guy was demonstrating a "Back to the Future" anti-gravity levitating skateboard.  This process is understood right down to the atomic level.

Even this concept, "Directory:Leedskalnin "Perpetual Motion Holder" (PMH) Bond Effect (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Leedskalnin_%22Perpetual_Motion_Holder%22_%28PMH%29_Bond_Effect)" is silly.  In real life nobody calls this a "perpetual motion holder" and nobody makes claim to it.  Thee is nothing to make claim to at all.  In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this.

If you go for a search in archive.org for Davi's Manual of Magnetism, you'll get several copies. But if you chose the edition from 1865, at the page 170 of the book (179 of pdf file), at the experiment 272, Figure 109 you'll find Leedskalnin's perpetual motion holder. Now, because is a myths and misconceptions thread, anyone would notice that Leedskalnin did not invented it and in fact, it was someone else long before his time who did it. One conclusion to be drawn, Leedskalnin found it in the books as he admitted he was visiting the library quite regularly.

Quote from: MileHigh on October 02, 2014, 03:26:53 PM
Even this concept, "Directory:Leedskalnin "Perpetual Motion Holder" (PMH) Bond Effect (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Leedskalnin_%22Perpetual_Motion_Holder%22_%28PMH%29_Bond_Effect)" is silly.  In real life nobody calls this a "perpetual motion holder" and nobody makes claim to it.  Thee is nothing to make claim to at all.  In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this.

Nobody makes claim to "perpetual motion holder" because is so old, the inventor's name is lost, but feel free to call it as you wish as long you could make use of it. Which brings me to "In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this".

Are you kidding, or are just an average ignorant? Watch the following video and re-draw your conclusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpd52QAdVgU

If you cannot do anything with the effect, is your problem. The effect is real, and in my opinion it should not be discarded because an ignorant or shill dismisses it.

Regards.

Barbosi:

Nobody "invented" this, it's just a property of magnetic material.  You can put energy into a closed-loop magnetic core and store the energy in the form of a closed loop of magnetic flux.  It's just a property of magnetic materials and there is nothing to invent.  That's what people need to understand.

Nobody says "In the 1950s and 1960s that computer memory was implemented using Ed Leedskalnin perpetual motion holders."  If you said that to a scientist or an engineer in the 1960s they would look at you like you were crazy.

For your point where you quote me, "Which brings me to "In real life nobody even bats an eyelash about this,"  I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that English is not your first language.  "Not batting an eyelash" does not mean or imply that there are no practical applications for something.  What it means is that there is nothing noteworthy or remarkable about the topic of discussion and it does not merit any further serious investigation.  So your linking to a clip about magnetic core memory is inappropriate in this case.

"If you cannot do anything with the effect, is your problem. The effect is real, and in my opinion it should not be discarded because an ignorant or shill dismisses it."

So, I can understand that you used the term "ignorant" because I am assuming that English is not your first language.

But "shill" I take offense to.  So you please tell everyone reading this thread about magnet myths and misconceptions why I am a "shill."  Explain your reasons for stating that or retract your comments.  If you don't reply and pretend to ignore my statements concerning your comment that will tell everyone something about you.

MileHigh

Here is one of the worst offending clips that promotes ignorance about magnetism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWSAcMoxITw

Quote from: MileHigh on October 02, 2014, 06:04:06 PM
Here is one of the worst offending clips that promotes ignorance about magnetism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWSAcMoxITw

I'll retract my comments if you properly explain how this promotes ignorance about magnetism. I'm not saying it does not, just prove your point.

You got the stage.

In the clip they say, "Nobody knows (what's happening)" and "This is essentially an unknown phenomena in the realm of physics."  He also says, "There is no reason that they should be stuck together."

That's a bozo clip that will make people stupid.

From here:  http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Leedskalnin_%22Perpetual_Motion_Holder%22_%28PMH%29_Bond_Effect

MarkE, "F = B^2/d.  Where F is the force, B is the flux density, and d is the air gap distance between the blocks.  For polished plates d is very small.  For iron the permeability is high and therefore so is B for modest n*I.  Put one layer of business cards between the two blocks and see what happens.  Witness science in action."

See3D, "This is very basic physics.  I understood what was going on in half a second.  I will explain it in as non technical terms as I can.  The two blocks of steel will become magnetized by the current pulse into the wire.  You will not detect an external magnetic field around the blocks after that, because the field is contained in a circular arrangement of the magnetic domains -- aligned in a circle with the wire channel as the center.  The field is reasonably large as long as the blocks are not forced apart.  As soon as they are forced apart (or if as Mark said, a piece of paper were inserted between them from the start), the field will have an air gap which reduces the strength of the magnet field.  Since this is not a permanent magnetic material, it can not stay magnetized to a high degree.  As the magnetic field strength gets smaller and smaller, the magnetic domains become more disordered.  The further the blocks are separated, the smaller the magnetic field, until there is only a very slight residual magnetic field left.  That is the slight magnetic field that is detected when putting the steel pieces together again.  In the good old days of horseshoe magnets (before strong rare earth magnets), there was always a iron "keeper" bar that was kept between the N ans S poles.  This was for the same reason.  If the keeper bar was removed without some other way to close the magnetic circuit, the horseshoe magnet would loose some of its power -- and that was from a more permanent magnet material."

And here is Yoda333 making a fool of himself, "Can we ever, at this website, see that there are a bunch of crackpots making statements here?  I mean, this really takes the cake.  Frankly, there really is no value in the comments section of this website.  It's a conglomeration of doubters that lurk here just for the opportunity to attempt to debunk something, and try to prove their own brilliance, even when they make fools of themselves in trying to do so.  What a waste of time.  You have been very patient with these same people Sterling, and now you finally have them in a corner on something they can't prove you wrong, and they are scrambling and referring to ridiculous notions of "Magnetic Remanence"!!!!!  LOL  Seriously folks, it doesn't get any better than this...  Total Shills, especially those that have in the past been given a badge for open mindedness amongst the doubters...  A plea only to gain position to further debase any good discussions.  I can't wait until these technologies make it to market.  Two things can happen.  1.  The Doubters here Eat Crow  2.  They all go away because they were being paid for the job of being Shills, and they no longer gain value from staying here and slinging negativity, so they go away.  Either way, I get really tired of watching you take a beating Sterling...  You don't deserve it, and it has become clear to me that you are a visionary, and that kind of spirit is not found in doubters like these.  You can point to past great men of extraordinary imagination all you want, but they will be forever skeptic as that is what they thrive on.  And once a new technology emerges that makes their arguments obsolete, I'm sure they will find something else to try to debunk! LOL."

We must not forget that what we call "knowledge"
regarding magnetism is largely observational theory.

What we do not know about magnetism outweighs
what we truly do know by several orders of magnitude.

Human character defects often prevent acquisition of
true knowledge.

QuoteWhat we do not know about magnetism outweighs
what we truly do know by several orders of magnitude.

The truth is that you don't know what you don't know.  So that means you don't know if we have it all figured out or if we have a lot more to learn.  It certainly means that if you don't know what you don't know then you are not in any position to state "several orders of magnitude."

Why not start by trying to learn what we do know, instead of navel gazing about what we might not know?  That's the typical "short circuit approach" where a beginner that has very little understanding throws that line at someone that is knowledgeable.  You see it all the time, and it was used ineffectively for the QEG.

And please don't tell me that you do know how much we don't know because you got that information from the same "entities" that tell you all about the coming apocalypse and the war between good and evil and that Cabal stuff because my eyes will glaze over.

QuoteHuman character defects often prevent acquisition of true knowledge.

I agree, that's why you have fiascoes like the QEG and hundreds or thousands of people out of pocket.  That's why you have people playing with coils and magnets for years without understanding how they work.  They even make "educational" clips.  Hence this thread to try to help some people.

Anything which is classified as "theoretical" is an
admission that it really is unknown.

Although we may not know what we don't know;
we can be fairly certain that theories are frequently
subject to change as the unknowns become better
known.

To think of scientific theory as scientific fact would
be most unscientific.

Yes, I am well aware Miles.  Your eyes become glazed
over with Truth.  You might say that you have sort of
an intrinsic Truth Detector.  If you could only believe
your lying eyes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-NlR54PqLw), that is... 8)

What we know are just experimental observations.  What we don't know are the most basic things.

There are lot of experiments showing the behaviour,properties and nature of magnetic fields.   But the most basic questions : What is a magnetic field?  What is it made of? - No one knows the answer.

Can we define magnetic field as 'cluster of magnetons emitted by moving electrons and held in position around magnet by magnetic black hole?'  (black hole or black pole?)

We are developing our knowledge without knowing basics.   Which is as bad as constructing a house without foundation, which ofcourse may collapse any time.

You can define a magnetic field as a cloud of tiny purple honeybees swarming in tune to a Sosa march if you like. But if it doesn't help you observe, describe, calculate, control, engineer, or to predict future behaviour, then your definition isn't going to be much good.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 03, 2014, 03:27:11 AM
You can define a magnetic field as a cloud of tiny purple honeybees swarming in tune to a Sosa march if you like.

I don't think honeybees are swarming!

Another interesting (crazy) observation :

It doesnot look like moving electrons produce magnetic field.  If moving electron produces magnetic field, then magnetic field should also move with the electron producing it.   Hence we should feel the force or vibration of moving magnetic field externally near a coil.

But practically we observe that when a direct current is passed through a coil, we get a static magnetic field at the centre of  coil and we don't feel any force (or vibration)  of a moving magnetic field.

Does it mean that when electron starts moving, mother nature provides it with an armour in the form of magnetic field to protect it from attacking enemies??!!!  Is magnetic field  produced by moving electron or nature? (vaccuum)

Can anybody explain why a moving electron current in a coil produces a static magnetic field at the centre?

What do you mean when you say "feel a force or vibration?"

Quote from: MileHigh on October 03, 2014, 03:37:18 PM
What do you mean when you say "feel a force or vibration?"

What happens when you poke a straw man with a knitting needle?

Quote from: MileHigh on October 03, 2014, 03:37:18 PM
What do you mean when you say "feel a force or vibration?"

I have said 'force or vibration of a moving magnetic field'. 


If you pass an AC through a coil and take a iron piece near the coil, iron piece vibrates indicating that the magnetic field produced by coil is in some sort motion or oscillation.

But if you pass a DC through the coil and bring a iron piece near it, you won't feel any vibration of the iron piece and it simply gets attracted to the coil indicating that magnetic field is stagnant.

My question is why moving electrons in a DC produce static magnetic field in the coil? 

What happens if you hammer a crowbar ( mega needle ) into strawman's ass ?? :-\

A continuous flow of unchanging DC current will produce a continuous unchanging magnetic field.  Easily confirmed by experimental observation.

You want to get more technical?  Study this guy's clips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg

Quote from: MileHigh on October 03, 2014, 11:58:16 PM
A continuous flow of unchanging DC current will produce a continuous unchanging magnetic field.  Easily confirmed by experimental observation.

I know that a uniform DC produces unchanging magnetic field at the centre. 

Whether this unchanging flux remains static or rotates around a vertical axis following the path of moving electrons? When a moving electron produces magnetic field, the magnetic field should also move along with it, is it not?

Will the  magnetic field produced by a permanent magnet remains static or will it rotate around a vertical axis following the path of electrons producing that magnetic field?

If you don't understand my question- leave it - no problem.

The existance of magnetic field, transformation of electric field to magnetic field and other strange properties of magnetic field are beyond the scope of ordinary cracknuts. Better forget about all those things and enjoy playing with 'magnetic black holes'.


https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-moving-electron-produce-magnetic-field.184619/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vortex

someone said in TA thread that magnetic field is move at ~60x speed of light, magnetic field is not static but i dont know he said that for PM or electromagnet (coil) or both. i can not recall his name. 

Quote from: Newton II on October 03, 2014, 09:44:06 PM
I have said 'force or vibration of a moving magnetic field'. 


If you pass an AC through a coil and take a iron piece near the coil, iron piece vibrates indicating that the magnetic field produced by coil is in some sort motion or oscillation.

But if you pass a DC through the coil and bring a iron piece near it, you won't feel any vibration of the iron piece and it simply gets attracted to the coil indicating that magnetic field is stagnant.

There really is no difference between these two scenarios.

Quote
My question is why moving electrons in a DC produce static magnetic field in the coil? 

This is the pertinent question.

But I don't think the question is "why" as much as it is "how". I believe the magnetic field is produced because the electron field around the individual atoms become aligned with each other.

But how does applying a DC voltage/voltage cause this alignment? There does not seem to be a maximum alignment like there is with aligning domains in a core material.

Quote from: poynt99 on October 04, 2014, 09:13:34 AM
But I don't think the question is "why" as much as it is "how". I believe the magnetic field is produced because the electron field around the individual atoms become aligned with each other.

But how does applying a DC voltage/voltage cause this alignment? There does not seem to be a maximum alignment like there is with aligning domains in a core material.

I had not considered this before.  The relationship between current "flow" and the corresponding magnetic field "strength" increases as 1:1 (heating losses aside) as far as testing has shown?  There is no apparent, or theoretical limit?

Newton II:

I could not fine the right clip to link to yesterday, but I found it today:

"Calculating the Magnetic Field due to a Moving Point Charge"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg&index=47 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg&index=47)

So for a moving point charge you can say that it is any value of charge, even the charge associated with a single electron.  If you watch the clip you will see that there is a magnetic field that envelopes the single moving electron and it moves along with the electron.

Magnetic fields are vectors with magnitude and direction.  If you have multiple magnetic field vectors at a single point in 3D space due to multiple moving electrons in a wire, then they all add together.

So, you do have a moving magnetic field for each moving electron.  So each distinct point in 3D space around the wire is affected by trillions and trillions of magnetic field vectors due to trillions and trillions of moving individual electrons.  The net result of all of these trillions and trillions of magnetic field vector additions when you have DC current is that you have a single unchanging magnetic field vector at a given point in 3D space.

It's as simple (or complicated) as that.

One of the myths is that when you hold two magnets with opposing poles next to each other and you feel the repulsion between the poles that you have "stressed space" in the region between the two opposite poles.  That's just a myth.  A person feels the repulsion and says, "that must be special stressed space."  The magnetic field vectors from each magnet are simply passing through the same 3D space and crossing paths without even being "aware" that the other magnet is there.  The magnetic field vectors are just "blindly" adding together to create a new net magnetic field with a new magnitude and direction at every point in 3D space.

Another myth is that people believe that something must be "circulating around" because they look at diagrams with magnetic field lines of force represented as circles with directional arrows.  It's just a myth self-created from looking at diagrams on paper.

You can just as easily feel forces between two charged objects due to an electric field between the two objects but that is a much rarer occurrence for experimenters so they don't even think about it.

You can "stress" space with electric fields and magnetic fields.  What actually is an electric field?  What actually is a magnetic field?   I don't know but it almost like going up to taste tester for a five star restaurant and asking him to describe the taste of water.

Here is what people forget all the time:  The magnetic field doesn't just "magically appear" when you have current flowing.  It tales electrical WORK (voltage x current x time) to get the current flowing and create the magnetic field.  Where does that work go?  The answer is the work goes into the actual 3D space around the wire.  A certain value of magnetic field intensity in a one-centimeter cube of 3D space next to a wire with current flowing through it has a certain amount of stored energy associated with it.  There is literally energy stored in empty 3D space because of the existence of the magnetic field.  The same thing applies to electric fields.

Here is an analogy that I think is quite useful:   Think of a long straight wire.  Think of a long straight balloon.  Now put the wire inside the balloon.  Forget about the ends of the balloon and all that stuff.  It's a "magic" balloon with no ends.

Now, when there there is no current flowing through the wire the balloon is deflated.   When current flows through the wire, at the beginning you have to do some extra work to inflate the balloon.  Once the balloon is inflated to a certain diameter then there is no extra work required to keep the current flowing.   Can you picture that?   The inflated balloon is not changing in diameter either, so there is no extra work required to keep the balloon inflated.

The membrane of the balloon is under tension - it's stressed.  The inflated balloon represents a certain amount of stored energy per unit length of wire.

That "stressed balloon" is analogous to the stressed 3D space around the wire due to the presence of the magnetic field.

It's just stressed 3D space, there is nothing "flowing" there are not necessarily any "flowing particles" that some people what to believe exist.  I am no expert into the sub-atomic quantum realm and perhaps there is research going on there.  What I can say is that we CAN MEASURE the magnetic field and we UNDERSTAND that this represents stressed 3D space that stores energy, just like the inflated balloon stores energy.

Then when you shut off the current flow through the wire by opening a switch, the balloon deflates and gives back the energy that was originally expended to create it in the first place.  There is your high-voltage spike.  To be more precise, it is a small amount of continuing current flow that also manifests itself as a high-voltage spike.

One of the important lessons here is to "never take your eye off of the 'energy ball'"   A magnetic field in 3D space represents the storage of energy per unit volume of space.  Electrical energy was used to create that energy storage in 3D space and electrical energy is given back, or output, when the magnetic field collapses.

Here is another story to ponder....

Yes, when you measure a static magnetic field around a wire with DC current flowing through it, it's actually the vector summation of trillions and trillions of moving magnetic field "sheaths" that surround the moving electrons in the wire.

Now, when you go to inflate your tire and you measure the tire pressure with a pressure gage, you measure 30 pounds per square inch.   In reality, that pressure is created by trillions and trillions (?) of oxygen and nitrogen and other molecules hitting the pressure transducer plate per second inside tire pressure gage.

So how often when you fill up your tires in a gas station do you say to yourself, "It's not really PSI, it's actually trillions of air molecules bouncing around and hitting the pressure transducer plate inside the tire pressure gage.?"

The answer is that you almost never say that to yourself.  Just like when you do experiments on the bench and you measure the magnetic field around an inductor or a bar magnet you don't have to always be thinking about the trillions and trillions of moving electrons.

These crazy myths and misconceptions about magnets and magnetism will live on forever.  But at least if you are a serious researcher and experimenter around here you should undertake to learn these things and accept them for the physical and verifiable reality that they represent so that you can do better and smarter experiments.  To say, "By default I want to believe in 'alternative' explanations because they are 'cooler'" is honestly just plain stupid.  This compulsion to "go against the grain" because you have a belief that you are supposed to go against the grain is ultimately counterproductive.  Do the research and experiments and figure things out for yourself.

One classic example of this is the stupid "series bifilar" coil.  You see people do experimental setups where by default they wind their coil in a series bifilar configuration.  In 99% of the cases it's nonsensical electronics quackery in action.  Whether you just make an ordinary coil or make a "series bifilar" coil makes no difference.  The only thing that counts is the number of turns.

People don't even know why they are winding a series bifilar coil.  I have to assume that the main reason they do it is because everybody else is doing it.  That is a HUGE mistake and shows people not wanting to actually understand.  That is a problem if you are supposed to be doing research.  This kind of incorrect way of thinking can be traced back as one of the root causes of the Quantum Energy Generator quackery and the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars given to con artists.

Quote from: Newton II on October 04, 2014, 04:50:21 AM
a moving electron produces magnetic field, the magnetic field should also move along with it, is it not?

Fundamental misunderstanding: electron does not move this way!! The best explanation is here, and believe it or not, this is the best explanation IMHO:

Electrons in metals do not hold still.  They wiggle around constantly even when there is zero electric current.  However, this movement is not really a flow, it is more like a vibration, or like a high-speed wandering movement...
see the whole article here:
http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html (http://amasci.com/miscon/speed.html)
and more K-6 revelations... _{where K stands for kindergarten}

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 03, 2014, 07:07:46 PM
What happens when you poke a straw man with a knitting needle?

He says hay?

@Milehigh

You have done a smart research work. Hats off for that.

1) Now we agree that a moving electron produces magnetic field which moves along with electron.   

2) The magnetic fields  produced by infinite number of electrons add together resulting in a external strong magnetic field which seems   
     to be static but theoritically will have a vectorial movement.

3) When moving electrons are stopped, the stored energy in electrons is dissipated as a EM wave.

This may lead to another thinking that is magnetic field produced by an electron analogous to the kinetic energy developed by a solid moving mass?

In mechanics a solid mass 'm'  moving with velocity 'v' develops  kinetic energy  of  ½ mv2.   But when you supply energy to the electrons by applying voltage, the electron  cannot store energy in the form of   ½ mv2  because its mass is negligible.  So it creates a magnetic field to store the supplied energy.   When electrons are stopped, energy is released as EM wave.

So, if you study the magnetic field carefully you will know what is energy.

Does it make any sense or just a blah-blah?

Charge. It is the motion of charge, not of electrons themselves, that makes the field.

Electrons carry the unit negative charge, by definition and measurement, but as Qwert points out above the electrons themselves, for example in metal wires, don't need to move that fast. I think the situation with charge and moving electrons is kind of like "Newton's balls", where units of charge (the momentum of the "input ball") are transferred across the system very rapidly, even though the individual "balls" don't move hardly at all.
Magnetic fields can be produced by moving ions, both positive and negative. So it is the motion of the charge, not the motion of the charge +carriers+, that produces the field. Charge, motion, field: One thing. One.

OK, carry on.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 04, 2014, 04:20:59 PM
Charge. It is the motion of charge, not of electrons themselves, that makes the field.

Electrons carry the unit negative charge, by definition and measurement, but as Qwert points out above the electrons themselves, for example in metal wires, don't need to move that fast. I think the situation with charge and moving electrons is kind of like "Newton's balls", where units of charge (the momentum of the "input ball") are transferred across the system very rapidly, even though the individual "balls" don't move hardly at all.
Magnetic fields can be produced by moving ions, both positive and negative. So it is the motion of the charge, not the motion of the charge +carriers+, that produces the field. Charge, motion, field: One thing. One.

OK, carry on.

So the movement of many charges (ions) in a magnet is what produces the continual magnetic field in a magnet?  Why can't these charges be depleted?

Liberty

Newton II:

Yes, we agree that a moving electron has a magnetic field that "moves" with it.  Note however that I put "moves" in quotations.  The magnetic field does not literally move with the the electron.  What really happens is the moving electron changes the local magnetic field at every point in space around the moving electron as it moves.  In other words, if you are at a fixed point in space and an electron moves past you, you experience a changing magnetic field.   It's a subtle but important difference.

Think of sound waves.  A police car drives past you with the siren on.  You hear the siren first low, then very loud, and then low again.   The sound changes in volume as the police car passes you, but the sound is not literally "moving" with the police car.  The police car siren is emitting a fixed unmoving sound at every instant in time.  This is a continuous process.  Think of a boat moving through the water as another example.  The moving electron causes a "local disturbance" in the magnetic field.

When the moving electrons stop the energy contained in the magnetic field has to go somewhere.  In most cases the electrons move past the "stop point" because of the electrical inertia associated with the whole process.  That's the high-voltage spike.  It does not necessarily mean that the energy will become an EM wave.

QuoteIn mechanics a solid mass 'm'  moving with velocity 'v' develops  kinetic energy  of  ½ mv2.   But when you supply energy to the electrons by applying voltage, the electron  cannot store energy in the form of   ½ mv2  because its mass is negligible.  So it creates a magnetic field to store the supplied energy.   When electrons are stopped, energy is released as EM wave.

There is a direct correspondence.  Mechanical inertia is mass x velocity.  Electrical inertia is inductance x current flow.  So for an inductor with current flowing through it, the magnetic flux generated is effectively the electrical inertia.  Think of this:  You energize an inductor and put energy into it by applying (voltage x current x time).  That creates a magnetic field.  The current flow and the magnetic field are directly related to each other  (current flow -> magnetic field).  So if you try to stop the current flow then the magnetic field "takes over" to induce the current flow (magnetic filed -> current flow.)  They are so closely related that one becomes the other and vice-versa.

TK:

There are a lot of misunderstandings about electric fields and charge also.  In a generator, there is no "charge" in the wires.  There is an induced electric field that pushes the electrons through the wires, without any net charge in the wires themselves.  Likewise, some people talk about voltage being related to charge density, but that's only for static electricity.  You have voltage in the windings of a generator with no excess charge density.  There are two sources of an electric field, the static electric field associated with electrostatics, and the "dynamic" electric field associated with changing magnetic fields.  A so-so analogy for current flow in a wire because of a dynamically induced electric field might be a simple vertical shaft with balls falling through a gravity field.  The gravity field is like the electric field and the balls are like the electrons.

Liberty:

The source of the magnetic field in a magnet is the trillions and trillions of electrons orbiting iron atoms where they are all orbiting in the same rotational direction.  Each one acts like a little tiny magnet.  The electrons spinning in tight little circles still create a magnetic field in the same way that an electron creates a magnetic field when moving in a straight line.

MileHigh

I have a question.  If you have a piece of 12ga. copper wire that has been used in operation with heavy currents (not over the wire's rated capacity though) for say 50 years.  If you take a new piece of the same ga. wire and compare the two...is there any differences that can be observed from the years of electron "movement" or "vibrations" in the old wire vs. the new?  In other words, and I am not talking about the elements degrading the insulation, or anything associated with over heating of the old wire, is there any chemical or physical change in the wire, like density, or any other change as a result of the electron movement in it for all of those years?

I have heard electricians use the term that an old wire was "worn out" and he was not talking about the insulation as it was bare copper wire.  What does this mean?  And, is it a result of electron movement causing degradation of the molecules in the copper wire?  Or, under a powerful electron microscope, would we see no changes in the old, used wire vs the new wire?  Does the old wire's resistance increase somehow over time and the resulting heating cause this degradation?  If so, what changes occur in the wire to cause it's resistance to increase?

Thanks, I am learning a lot in this topic thus far.

Bill

Quote from: Liberty on October 04, 2014, 04:53:31 PM
Why can't these charges be depleted?
Liberty

I think that is a great question.

In mechanics, the kinetic energy of a moving mass is defined as  "energy possessed by virtue of its velocity" and its magnitude is 1/2mv2

And potential energy of same mass is defined as "energy possessed by virtue of its position" and its magnitude is 'mgh'  where 'h' is its height above the ground. (reference)

So, when magnetic field produced by a moving charge is analogous to kinectic energy,  the static charge should be analogous to potential energy.

A  moving charge looses its kinetic energy which is magnetic field, when the charge is stopped. But it will still have potential energy in the form of electric charge.  This potential energy will be lost only if this charge literally 'falls' on the reference which is responsible for imparting potential energy on it.

The question here is,  a charge possesses potential energy with reference to what?  and who imparts it potential energy by  'lifting'  it above the reference?

I think this question is being dealt with in quantum mechanics since the very birth of quantum mechanics.  Don't know whether 'quantum mechanists'  have got the answer yet.

If this question is answered we will know the secret of this universe.

And it will be a revelation of 100G where 'G' stands for God.

Quote from: Newton II on October 04, 2014, 10:49:28 PM
And it will be a revelation of 100G where 'G' stands for God.

I guess a good example to understand the concept of moving charge at DC while electrons only push their neighbors is the known "domino effect" where domino pieces represent electrons: they need only small movement to transfer energy along their path: more rows have more energy, also taller pieces have more energy: one stands for I, another one for V.

Strength of magnetic field produced by a coil depends on number turns also. 

Think that you have a superconductor wire at room temperature.  Make a coil with it having 'X' number of turns. Pass a DC of 'Y' amperes through it applying a voltage of 'Z'. The power input to the coil is 'YZ' watts.  Hence energy stored in magnetic field is also 'YZ' watts because coil is superconducting and no losses.

1) When number of turns is 'X',  input power is YZ and power of magnetic field is also YZ

2) Increase number of turns to '10X' adding additional wire, input power is 'YZ' and power of magnetic field is '10YZ'

3) Increase number of turns to '100X',  input power is 'YZ' and power of magnetic field is '100YZ'

4) Increase number of turns to 'infinite X',  input power is YZ and power of magnetic field is infinite!!  (coil is superconducting hence
    no resistance even with infinite turns)


Confusing....???? :-[

Bill,

I don't believe there is any physical change in the wire from extended use. Sounds like a myth if some are saying there is.

Quote from: vineet_kiran on October 05, 2014, 08:02:08 AM
Strength of magnetic field produced by a coil depends on number turns also. 

That's academic, but what causes the field in a straight piece of wire?

Is it caused by the movement of the drift (free) electrons or the electron cloud in each atom? Or is it the alignment of the individual electrons to all "spin" (http://www.markusehrenfried.de/science/physics/hermes/whatisspin.html) with their axis' in the same plane?

Quote from: poynt99 on October 05, 2014, 08:40:39 AM
That's academic, but what causes the field in a straight piece of wire?

Is it caused by the movement of the drift (free) electrons or the electron cloud in each atom? Or is it the alignment of the individual electrons to all "spin" (http://www.markusehrenfried.de/science/physics/hermes/whatisspin.html) with their axis' in the same plane?

May be it is same as the case of schrodinger's cat, dead and alive at the same time depending on circumstances  because for DC, electrons have to move but for AC,  electrons only have to vibrate in tune with the changing magnetic field causing vibration.

Don't know the exact reason. Some knowledgeable person has to explain.

Quote from: poynt99 on October 05, 2014, 08:35:23 AM
Bill,

I don't believe there is any physical change in the wire from extended use. Sounds like a myth if some are saying there is.

Thanks.  So, any change in the wire was due to external exposure to the elements and not any internal molecular change due to the movement/vibration of electrons.  Would this mean that the electrons move/vibrate in the empty space between the atoms that make up the copper and therefore have no effect on them?  Would it be like hitting a long pipe with a hammer and having the sound vibrations moving along the pipe from end to end?  I am having trouble visualizing this.  So then, the magnetic field surrounding a wire with moving/vibrating electrons is due to the electrons themselves aligning together to create the field and not the atoms of the copper conductor itself being manipulated in any way?  Then this would make the copper conductor an inert host to the activity of the electrons I suppose.

Now I find it harder to understand, if there is no interaction with the conductors atoms, then why do some materials act as conductors and some insulators?  If these vibrations occur in the empty space in the structure of the material then it should not matter what that material is, but we all know that it does.  Materials that make good conductors of electricity, as we all know, make good conductors of heat as well.  This would make me think that the molecular structure of the conductor material is important, but if the electron activity within the conductor has no interaction with the atoms of the material itself, then why would this be?

I just went through all of my electronics books over here where they discuss atomic structure, electrons, conductors and insulators, and I could not find any answer for this.

Thanks,

Bill

Bill,

Metals are good conductors because they exhibit free (loosely bound) electrons in their structure. Insulators don't have free electrons, so they are poor conductors of electricity.

See this pdf (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feecs.oregonstate.edu%2F~traylor%2Fece112%2Flectures%2Felectrons_and_conductors.pdf&ei=l10xVOT8FKGziwLMwYGgDg&usg=AFQjCNHvbtX6eslqmqTjDRHvWTBMo5qrjw&sig2=yPCFS7NaqieGjXjQUNX_Xw&bvm=bv.76802529,d.cGE&cad=rja) and this Hyperphysics page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/conins.html).

Just because the free electrons in a wire are constantly scattered and colliding as they make their way from one end to the other, doesn't mean the wire becomes worn out. For the electrons that do leave the wire, there are an equal number entering.

Quote from: poynt99
I don't believe there is any physical change in the wire from extended use. Sounds like a myth if some are saying there is.

That's one I've not heard.

Although, it is reported that 'work hardened' copper is not
as conductive as freshly annealed soft copper.

Quote from: MileHigh on October 04, 2014, 05:48:13 PM
(snip)
TK:

There are a lot of misunderstandings about electric fields and charge also.  In a generator, there is no "charge" in the wires.  There is an induced electric field that pushes the electrons through the wires, without any net charge in the wires themselves.  Likewise, some people talk about voltage being related to charge density, but that's only for static electricity.  You have voltage in the windings of a generator with no excess charge density.  There are two sources of an electric field, the static electric field associated with electrostatics, and the "dynamic" electric field associated with changing magnetic fields.  A so-so analogy for current flow in a wire because of a dynamically induced electric field might be a simple vertical shaft with balls falling through a gravity field.  The gravity field is like the electric field and the balls are like the electrons.

(snip)
MileHigh

Ah... er.... um.... almost.
There is only one field, the EM field. It is the relationship between charge and motion.  There is no difference between a "static" electrical field as in "electrostatics" and the "dynamic"  electric field associated with changing magnetic fields. A generator does in fact separate charge and in a current-carrying wire, charge is indeed separated. Don't believe me? Connect a capacitor across the output of your DC generator and watch what happens.
The changing magnetic field in the generator produces a movement of charge. What happens in the wire that is distant from the changing fields in the generator? The charge pressure that is created by the generator "pushing" on local charges in the wire is transferred -- like charge repels like -- down the wire and at the distal end you see a voltage: charge pressure.
The main differences between "electrostatic" charge and "dynamic" charge (current) are the number of charges involved and whether they are moving or not. A Coulomb is a _huge_ amount of charge. Put a Coulomb of charge onto something where it will be retained and you will have huge electric field effects associated with it. Make that thing smaller and the charge density will increase: voltage increases: until it leaks off due to isolation breakdown and conduction. Put a Coulomb of charge through a conductor every second, and you have one Ampere of current flowing and a large magnetic field associated with it. Flow that current into a capacitor and watch the charge pressure accumulate (voltage on the cap rises). Same field, same pressure, same voltage phenomena, whether "electrostatic" or "dynamic".
You can have currents that consist of beams of electrons in free space, as in Cathode Ray tubes. You can have currents that are transferred by conductive plasmas of ions, as in neon tubes. You can even have currents transferred by large ions dissolved in fluids, as in electrophoresis. But in each case it is the _charge_ that is moved by external fields (which result in the charge pressure gradient, AKA potential, AKA tension, AKA voltage), and which drags whatever material carrier along with it.

And what is a charge?

Quote from: bboj on October 05, 2014, 01:01:46 PM
And what is a charge?

That which is moved by the field.

Charge, field, motion, one thing. One.


Now you might as well ask "what is matter" or "what does God really look like".

Quote from: bboj on October 05, 2014, 01:01:46 PM
And what is a charge?

Seriously? It is a fundamental property of matter, one of the "quantum numbers" that describes certain kinds of subatomic particles. It is a conserved quantity, just like momentum or energy. It is that property of matter that causes the associated particle to move in certain ways under certain conditions. It comes in two "polarities" that we arbitrarily call positive and negative. Charge is quantized, which means it comes in discrete amounts, the smallest of which is the Unit charge, and the electron is the particle which carries the Unit Negative Charge.

What is "wetness"?

Quote from: poynt99 on October 05, 2014, 11:06:10 AM
Bill,

Metals are good conductors because they exhibit free (loosely bound) electrons in their structure. Insulators don't have free electrons, so they are poor conductors of electricity.

See this pdf (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feecs.oregonstate.edu%2F~traylor%2Fece112%2Flectures%2Felectrons_and_conductors.pdf&ei=l10xVOT8FKGziwLMwYGgDg&usg=AFQjCNHvbtX6eslqmqTjDRHvWTBMo5qrjw&sig2=yPCFS7NaqieGjXjQUNX_Xw&bvm=bv.76802529,d.cGE&cad=rja) and this Hyperphysics page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/conins.html).

Just because the free electrons in a wire are constantly scattered and colliding as they make their way from one end to the other, doesn't mean the wire becomes worn out. For the electrons that do leave the wire, there are an equal number entering.

.99:

Thank you.  So, does this mean that the "charge" is like the example that MH gave of the Newton's ball arrangement then?  An electron enters the conductor and collides with (repels) one of those loose free electrons in the conductor and bumps it down along the conductor into other free electrons, etc, etc.  The Hyperphysics link described this as a chain reaction.  Your links, combined with MH's example now make this a lot more clear to me. 

Thank you very much both of you.  I am a lot closer to understanding what is really going on which, of course, could be dangerous.

Bill

Quote from: poynt99 on October 05, 2014, 11:06:10 AM
Bill,

Metals are good conductors because they exhibit free (loosely bound) electrons in their structure. Insulators don't have free electrons, so they are poor conductors of electricity.

See this pdf (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Feecs.oregonstate.edu%2F~traylor%2Fece112%2Flectures%2Felectrons_and_conductors.pdf&ei=l10xVOT8FKGziwLMwYGgDg&usg=AFQjCNHvbtX6eslqmqTjDRHvWTBMo5qrjw&sig2=yPCFS7NaqieGjXjQUNX_Xw&bvm=bv.76802529,d.cGE&cad=rja) and this Hyperphysics page (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/conins.html).

Just because the free electrons in a wire are constantly scattered and colliding as they make their way from one end to the other, doesn't mean the wire becomes worn out. For the electrons that do leave the wire, there are an equal number entering.

True enough... but....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration

Bill:

I can actually offer up a pet theory about your old wire story from the electricians.  I have not done any searching on this at all.  My pet theory is that it may be possible that the metal mixtures in some very old wire may be 'off' or the wire itself was poorly manufactured.  For example, when the metal was made into wire it was not a homogeneous mixture, or they used cheap and inferior copper with too many impurities, etc.

So over lots of time, say 50 years, some of the copper or aluminum atoms started to crystallize.  Or the impurities started to crystallize.  Atoms can actually slowly migrate through the metal over time to gather together.  That physical rearrangement of some of the atoms in the wire would cause micro-fissures or perhaps even very fine cracks visible under a microscope.  Or, the fact that the wire was partially crystallized means that the moment you handled it then fissures or cracks could happen.  The net result would be that the wire would be more resistive because the cracks would reduce the cross-sectional area in various places along the wire.  It's just a guess.

Bill/TK:

No, it was TK (I think) and others that suggested the "Newton's ball" model for current flow were "entering electrons" "push" against neighboring electrons to give you current flow because of the electrical repulsion between electrons.

I don't believe that model is correct.  What I stated is that all of the electrons in a wire will be induced to move at the same time because of the presence of an electric field in the wire,  The electric field snakes down the wire and induces all of the free electrons in the wire to move in unison.

So the electrons in the case of current flowing in a wire are not pushing against each other.  They are all just haplessly being pushed around at the same time by the presence of an electric field.

MileHigh

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 01:51:09 PM
True enough... but....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration)

"Electromigration reliability of a wire (Black's equation) Main article: Black's equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%27s_equation) At the end of the 1960s J. R. Black developed an empirical model to estimate the MTTF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTTF) (mean time to failure) of a wire, taking electromigration into consideration. Since then, the formula has gained popularity in the semiconductor industry. :^[3][5]

"The temperature of the conductor appears in the exponent, i.e. it strongly affects the MTTF of the interconnect. For an interconnect to remain reliable as the temperature rises, the maximum tolerable current density of the conductor must necessarily decrease. However, as interconnect technology advances at the nanometer scale, the validity of Black's equation becomes increasingly questionable."


TK:


This is exactly what I was talking about in theory except, it does not appear to be a large problem until you get down to a very small scale.  Although, it appears that Black developed this equation to determine the reliability of a wire over time so that seems to indicate that some changes are taking place inside the conductor.

Possibly MH's post about the impurities in the copper (or other conductor) affecting its properties over time is the basis for this maybe?  As he posted, when these micro cracks appear this would raise the resistance of the conductor and therefore possibly cause some heating which might further degrade the conductivity of the wire, etc. (Domino effect)  Very interesting stuff here.

I know I am going a little far afield of the topic but,  I really want to know exactly (if possible) what is happening inside a conductor when electrons vibrate within it or move through it.  After all, it is this activity that creates our magnetic field around these conductors right?

Sorry that I credited MH with the Newton's ball example that you posted.  (Thanks MH for pointing that out)

This is a great topic here fellows.

Bill

Is there such a thing as "skin effect" where there is more conduction on
the surface of a conductor? Multi-strand wire ought to have good performance.

Quote from: minnie on October 05, 2014, 03:20:47 PM


Is there such a thing as "skin effect" where there is more conduction on
the surface of a conductor? Multi-strand wire ought to have good performance.

I believe that multi-strand wire has less resistance than a solid wire of the same diameter.  (I think)  Does this mean that the strands are insulated individually themselves from each other like magnet wire?  Or, is it just a bunch of small, bare wires (all shorted together) having more additive surface area?  I guess I am being lazy here as I could just look this up.

Bill

ETA  I just read that due to the skin effect, multi-strand wire will have less resistance as most of the current flows along the surface of the individual wires.  I have no idea if this is true or not but googled it and read this in several places.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 01:10:16 PM
Seriously? It is a fundamental property of matter, one of the "quantum numbers" that describes certain kinds of subatomic particles. It is a conserved quantity, just like momentum or energy. It is that property of matter that causes the associated particle to move in certain ways under certain conditions. It comes in two "polarities" that we arbitrarily call positive and negative. Charge is quantized, which means it comes in discrete amounts, the smallest of which is the Unit charge, and the electron is the particle which carries the Unit Negative Charge.

What is "wetness"?

I got that more or less. But than as Point. asked - Why is magnetic field around a conductor with a dc current static?

Quote from: bboj on October 05, 2014, 04:51:27 PM



I got that more or less. But than as Point. asked - Why is magnetic field around a conductor with a dc current static?

An unchanging DC current, perhaps you mean? I can take my DC current of one amp, increase it to two amps, and while I am increasing the current, the magnetic field also increases.
You have got to get past these "why" questions, though. Why is there air? To fill up basketballs with, of course.

Charge, motion and field are related by a rigorously defined set of relationships that are mathematically precise. These relationships are contained in Maxwell's Equations, the Biot-Savart force law, and the Lorentz force law. Why do these relationships exist? So that there will be air to fill up basketballs with, of course.

Here, knock yourself out. (MH, you  might also be interested in taking a look at this document. Warning: math ahead.)

http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~mgc/EM1sec5.pdf

Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 05, 2014, 03:54:59 PM
I believe that multi-strand wire has less resistance than a solid wire of the same diameter.  (I think)  Does this mean that the strands are insulated individually themselves from each other like magnet wire?  Or, is it just a bunch of small, bare wires (all shorted together) having more additive surface area?  I guess I am being lazy here as I could just look this up.

Bill

ETA  I just read that due to the skin effect, multi-strand wire will have less resistance as most of the current flows along the surface of the individual wires.  I have no idea if this is true or not but googled it and read this in several places.

Litz wire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire

Quote from: minnie on October 05, 2014, 03:20:47 PM


Is there such a thing as "skin effect" where there is more conduction on
the surface of a conductor? Multi-strand wire ought to have good performance.

Yes, and "skin depth" is related to the frequency of the AC current being conducted. The higher the frequency the shallower this depth, in most materials. This is, in part, why people can get away with taking the discharge of a high voltage Tesla coil to their body. The current may be quite high... I have lit up incandescent light bulbs with body-conducted Tesla coil current -- but it travels on the surface of the skin rather than through the body. As long as the points of entry and exit are protected from the direct spark, one feels nothing.
And this is indeed why Litz wire is often used in coils that are to operate at high frequencies.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 07:50:07 PM
You have got to get past these "why" questions, though.

I disagree. The how is the most interesting part in my opinion.

Once the field is there, how to calculate its strength and everything else about it is "old hat" so to speak.

Every text and web page I've looked at seems to skirt around the actual mechanism of how the field is created. I'm sure however that there is a simple explanation. ;)

Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 01:50:07 AM (http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg419321/#msg419321)

You have got to get past these "why" questions, though.

Quote from: poynt99 on October 05, 2014, 09:55:13 PM
I disagree. The how is the most interesting part in my opinion.

Once the field is there, how to calculate its strength and everything else about it is "old hat" so to speak.

Every text and web page I've looked at seems to skirt around the actual mechanism of how the field is created. I'm sure however that there is a simple explanation. ;)

See what you did there? "How" and "why" are not really the same question.
As I understand it, there are a few "free parameters"  in the modern physical description of reality. Not many, only like sixteen or something like that. Everything else takes its calculated or derived value from the seemingly arbitrary values we see of these free parameters. Nobody knows just "why" these parameters take on the values they do, but what is known is that if any of them were even slightly different, the world would be very much different. For example, let the fine structure constant be only a few percent different... and no stars can form. The situation is kind of like Euclid's Axioms. Nobody knows "why", on a perfect plane, two parallel lines never intersect. But it's easy to see _how_ that happens (or rather doesn't happen) and to use that fact to prove, with mathematical certainty, other theorems about geometry.

Sure, the explanation you seek is simple. If it were otherwise... we would not be around to see it. Eventually, when we ask "why" something in Physics is the way it is, we bump up against the Anthropic Principle, weak or strong. And as you know these explanations are less than satisfactory.

So, humans invented Religion. God did it, because He wanted it to be that way. See, it says so right here in the (insert favorite holy book here).

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 11:21:00 PM
Sure, the explanation you seek is simple. If it were otherwise... we would not be around to see it. Eventually, when we ask "why" something in Physics is the way it is, we bump up against the Anthropic Principle, weak or strong. And as you know these explanations are less than satisfactory.

You are absolutely right.   Sun always rises from the East and not from the West -   "why?" -  because God feels that East is better than West!!  (Waste!!)

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 11:21:00 PM
Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 01:50:07 AM (http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg419321/#msg419321)

You have got to get past these "why" questions, though.

See what you did there? "How" and "why" are not really the same question.
As I understand it, there are a few "free parameters"  in the modern physical description of reality. Not many, only like sixteen or something like that. Everything else takes its calculated or derived value from the seemingly arbitrary values we see of these free parameters. Nobody knows just "why" these parameters take on the values they do, but what is known is that if any of them were even slightly different, the world would be very much different. For example, let the fine structure constant be only a few percent different... and no stars can form. The situation is kind of like Euclid's Axioms. Nobody knows "why", on a perfect plane, two parallel lines never intersect. But it's easy to see _how_ that happens (or rather doesn't happen) and to use that fact to prove, with mathematical certainty, other theorems about geometry.

Sure, the explanation you seek is simple. If it were otherwise... we would not be around to see it. Eventually, when we ask "why" something in Physics is the way it is, we bump up against the Anthropic Principle, weak or strong. And as you know these explanations are less than satisfactory.

So, humans invented Religion. God did it, because He wanted it to be that way. See, it says so right here in the (insert favorite holy book here).

Ok I am asking because I want some answers from you guys with much more knowledge.
I agree with what you say about known parameters but there must exist a physical reality - now if we have a varying DC flow it has to be flow of something. Is it a flow of some primary particles or what. Could it be flow in both direction so we have an impression of a static field.
You guys have much more experience -at least some of you, I am sure you asked these questions to yourselves.
A field surely is made of something.

Argh. Charge, motion, field: one thing. One.

What is moving? Charge. What is the smallest chunk of charge? The Unit Charge. Where are these charge chunks? The Negative one is carried by and is inseparable from the electron. The positive one is carried by the proton, and also the positron (the electron's antiparticle). Normally we never actually see those positive charge carrying particles because the proton is buried deep within the nucleus of atoms and the positron is only made in energetic reactions and doesn't stick around very long. So the positive charges we see, like on the top of a positive Van De Graaff machine, are actually "holes"... deficiencies in electrons, places where electrons should be to make everything neutral, but for some reason they aren't there.
OK, now in wires carrying current, you can think of the charge moving fast through the "electron gas" of conduction band electrons, like the momentum moves through a Newton's Balls system, or if it is easier you can think of the electrons themselves flowing along in the wire. Either way, the current (moving charge) is pushed along by the fact that at one end of the wire there is more negative charge than at the other. This of course also means that there is more _positive charge_ at the other end of the wire-- holes where electrons should be.
The reason metals don't flow and collapse from all this electron charge moving around is because there are a bloody _lot_ of electrons, a Coulomb is a huge number of them, and even with currents of kilo or megaAmperes we are still only moving a tiny fraction of the electrons in the wire.
Now, when you move a charge you get an associated magnetic field around it. The field has geometry and strength that is determined by the path and speed of the moving charge. You can think of it like the bow wave ahead of a moving boat. Each moving charge has its tiny "bow wave" of a magnetic field circling around the path of  motion. (But what acts as the "water" in this analogy? That's a very deep question.) But there are many many many charges moving in even the smallest currents. So if you were really tiny and could watch your wire, and a tiny single charge came by, being pushed from behind by MH's "field" or by charge pressure from the charges behind it (same thing) you would see a bump on your field detector as the charge came by. So a DC current--- a single moving charge -- generates a dynamic, changing field at your fixed location as the charge moves past. But there are many many many charges flowing in the tiniest real DC current, so you see what looks like a strong, static field at your measurement point, as the charges flow past so many and so fast your finest instrument can't tell them from a continuous flow of homogeneous fluid.

Now we do know why, or rather how, a boat makes a bow wave. You can't really move through the water without making one and the faster you go the bigger the wave. Charges make magnetic fields as they move relative to the observer. If the observer moves along with the charge... you don't see the magnetic field (because the field just describes how a thing will move and you are already moving that way) but you do see the electric field from the charge which isn't moving with respect to you. Now that duality of electric and magnetic fields, discriminated only by relative motion, is, to me, a grand mystery of the Universe. "Why" does that happen? Well, some people believe that that question can be answered in a meaningful way, and that's why they go out and build particle accelerators and learn complex mathematics. I just look around in awe, myself, and give thanks that things are the way they are. Maybe they could be different... but I doubt it.


eta: The electron's charge cannot be removed from it, but an electron isn't "just" a packet of the Unit Negative charge. It has mass and spin angular momentum as well. What is really weird is that it does not appear to have a "size"... it is considered a point particle, or a probability cloud.

I have few interesting (crazy) questions:

1)  If you charge a van de graph generator to full extent, fix it on a truck and run the truck with 100km/hr speed will the generator sphere
     create a 'mega magnetic field'?  Because moving charges should create magnetic field.   If not 'Why'?

2)  Negative and positive charges are characteristically  opposite charges. So, when a moving negative charge produces magnetic field, a
     moving positive charge should produce anti-magnetic field.  But it just produces a magnetic field in opposite direction corresponding to
     the negative charge flow. 'Why'?   

3)  When moving charges (current) produces a magnetic field, reversely a moving magnetic field should produce an electric current. That is
     the principle used in an Electric generator.  But all generators are AC generators (alternators)  in which the current is first generated
     only in AC form  and later converted to DC by using split ring commutator.   A moving magnetic field cannot straightaway produce a
     DC.   'Why?'     

Can any genious answer?

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 04:54:26 AM
Argh. Charge, motion, field: one thing. One.

What is moving? Charge. What is the smallest chunk of charge? The Unit Charge. Where are these charge chunks? The Negative one is carried by and is inseparable from the electron. The positive one is carried by the proton, and also the positron (the electron's antiparticle). Normally we never actually see those positive charge carrying particles because the proton is buried deep within the nucleus of atoms and the positron is only made in energetic reactions and doesn't stick around very long. So the positive charges we see, like on the top of a positive Van De Graaff machine, are actually "holes"... deficiencies in electrons, places where electrons should be to make everything neutral, but for some reason they aren't there.
OK, now in wires carrying current, you can think of the charge moving fast through the "electron gas" of conduction band electrons, like the momentum moves through a Newton's Balls system, or if it is easier you can think of the electrons themselves flowing along in the wire. Either way, the current (moving charge) is pushed along by the fact that at one end of the wire there is more negative charge than at the other. This of course also means that there is more _positive charge_ at the other end of the wire-- holes where electrons should be.
The reason metals don't flow and collapse from all this electron charge moving around is because there are a bloody _lot_ of electrons, a Coulomb is a huge number of them, and even with currents of kilo or megaAmperes we are still only moving a tiny fraction of the electrons in the wire.
Now, when you move a charge you get an associated magnetic field around it. The field has geometry and strength that is determined by the path and speed of the moving charge. You can think of it like the bow wave ahead of a moving boat. Each moving charge has its tiny "bow wave" of a magnetic field circling around the path of  motion. (But what acts as the "water" in this analogy? That's a very deep question.) But there are many many many charges moving in even the smallest currents. So if you were really tiny and could watch your wire, and a tiny single charge came by, being pushed from behind by MH's "field" or by charge pressure from the charges behind it (same thing) you would see a bump on your field detector as the charge came by. So a DC current--- a single moving charge -- generates a dynamic, changing field at your fixed location as the charge moves past. But there are many many many charges flowing in the tiniest real DC current, so you see what looks like a strong, static field at your measurement point, as the charges flow past so many and so fast your finest instrument can't tell them from a continuous flow of homogeneous fluid.

Now we do know why, or rather how, a boat makes a bow wave. You can't really move through the water without making one and the faster you go the bigger the wave. Charges make magnetic fields as they move relative to the observer. If the observer moves along with the charge... you don't see the magnetic field (because the field just describes how a thing will move and you are already moving that way) but you do see the electric field from the charge which isn't moving with respect to you. Now that duality of electric and magnetic fields, discriminated only by relative motion, is, to me, a grand mystery of the Universe. "Why" does that happen? Well, some people believe that that question can be answered in a meaningful way, and that's why they go out and build particle accelerators and learn complex mathematics. I just look around in awe, myself, and give thanks that things are the way they are. Maybe they could be different... but I doubt it.


eta: The electron's charge cannot be removed from it, but an electron isn't "just" a packet of the Unit Negative charge. It has mass and spin angular momentum as well. What is really weird is that it does not appear to have a "size"... it is considered a point particle, or a probability cloud.

Wonderful evidence of an intelligent designer (creator) that perfectly formed what we are just beginning to understand, just how He designed things to work in the universe.  We have the opportunity to personally come to understand and know what that intelligent engineer (creator) of perfection knows, and what he can further reveal to us and teach us about His universe and ourselves?  A close relationship with the great engineer of the universe: (Jesus Christ) that engineered the functioning of the electron, the magnetic fields, and the entire atomic world and universe.  To gain more knowledge and understanding from the original source of all knowledge and wisdom and power.  The Alpha and Omega.  (The beginning and the end).

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 05, 2014, 11:21:00 PM
Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 01:50:07 AM (http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg419321/#msg419321)

You have got to get past these "why" questions, though.

See what you did there? "How" and "why" are not really the same question.

I agree, and I made reference to that in a previous post.

However bboj was making reference to my question, which was "how", even though he used "why". So I suspect that is what he meant.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation, I do agree, based on the reading I have been doing. So, my simple explanation is as follows:

When a DC voltage is applied across a wire, the free conduction electrons are repelled from the negative electrode towards the positive electrode. The free electrons do not and can not move instantly from one end to the other due to scattering and collisions with other electrons. Each electron carries charge, and moving charge induces a moving magnetic field. But since the electrons do not instantly bolt from one end to the other, rather than a microscopic movement of charge, there is a macroscopic movement of charge from one end to the other. This macroscopic movement of charge is near the speed of light and results in a macroscopic magnetic field that we can measure around the wire.

A charge has an electric field, and it is the movement of the E field that produces the B field. The macroscopic moving E field in the wire is very much like the "moving" B field of a Faraday disc; i.e. even though the electrons producing the field are moving, the resulting produced field appears to be static. That's why a DC current in a wire does not induce a current in an adjacent open circuit wire. The field is not changing, relative to the other stationary wire. Yep special relativity comes into play and is responsible for mag fileds around wires and also the electromagnet.

When an AC source is applied to the same wire, we have the same scenario where the B field is produced, but in this case the field is not only alternating directions, but it is changing, i.e. varying in magnitude. It is this varying field that can induce a current in an adjacent wire. Induction is another related topic for another discussion perhaps.

Quote from: Newton II on October 06, 2014, 09:00:42 AM
I have few interesting (crazy) questions:

1)  If you charge a van de graph generator to full extent, fix it on a truck and run the truck with 100km/hr speed will the generator sphere
     create a 'mega magnetic field'?  Because moving charges should create magnetic field.   If not 'Why'?

It does. But the strength of the field depends on the velocity as well as the number of moving charges. Even at 100 km/hr you are moving too slowly and even a good VDG, fully charged to the point of corona leakage, will contain a tiny number of excess charges. A Coulomb is a huge amount of charge to have on a static system but it is only one ampere for one second of electrical current.
The numbers involved are so large, so small, and the electromagnetic force is so strong that our intuitions break down when we try to grasp the phenomenon fully. Some experience actually working with high voltages both "static" and "dynamic" helps one to understand, I think.

Quote

2)  Negative and positive charges are characteristically  opposite charges. So, when a moving negative charge produces magnetic field, a
     moving positive charge should produce anti-magnetic field.  But it just produces a magnetic field in opposite direction corresponding to
     the negative charge flow. 'Why'?   

You are once again asking the "why is there air" type question. Why do things fall down, instead of up?

Quote
3)  When moving charges (current) produces a magnetic field, reversely a moving magnetic field should produce an electric current. That is
     the principle used in an Electric generator.  But all generators are AC generators (alternators)  in which the current is first generated
     only in AC form  and later converted to DC by using split ring commutator.   A moving magnetic field cannot straightaway produce a
     DC.   'Why?'     

Can any genious answer?

Your assumptions are wrong. All generators are _not_ AC generators (alternators) and the fact that it is sometimes easier to produce AC than DC as a final output is a matter of geometry and construction. In fact "all generators" are DC generators, since the motion of the current, the field and the conductor are strictly related. The only reason you wind up with AC output from _some_ generators is because the things are cyclical, circular and are driven around and around, and efficiency requires use of both magnetic polarities in the circular machine. So you have one direction of motion but two directions of field, as the device rotates. But if you only use one polarity of field you can easily get DC only. I suggest you research the Faraday Dynamo, aka Homopolar Motor/Generator. Any time you have a conductor moving wrt magnetic field you have a DC current induced in the conductor, whose strength depends on the relative speed of motion (the component of the motion that is at 90 degrees to the field lines, the vector cross product) and the strength of the field. But the Faraday Dynamo shows that 1) a conductor moving in a magnetic field gets a DC current induced in it as long as the motion proceeds in one direction; and 2) the "field" doesn't rotate with the magnet, like a naive picture of "lines of force" might make you believe.

(And it's spelt "genius" ...  ;) )

Quote from: Liberty on October 06, 2014, 09:52:20 AM
Wonderful evidence of an intelligent designer (creator) that perfectly formed what we are just beginning to understand, just how He designed things to work in the universe.  We have the opportunity to personally come to understand and know what that intelligent engineer (creator) of perfection knows, and what he can further reveal to us and teach us about His universe and ourselves?  A close relationship with the great engineer of the universe: (Jesus Christ) that engineered the functioning of the electron, the magnetic fields, and the entire atomic world and universe.  To gain more knowledge and understanding from the original source of all knowledge and wisdom and power.  The Alpha and Omega.  (The beginning and the end).

No, you have just emitted a classic "Argument from Ignorance". This takes this form: We don't know why this seemingly miraculous stuff exists, therefore it is because God willed it.

There is no evidence for the conclusion, contained in the premises. I could just as well tell you NO, not your God, but rather the Flying Spaghetti Monster made all of this, three days ago, and planted false memories of childhood in everybody, just for fun.

Your conclusion may be true, or it may be false ... but your premises and your mode of reasoning do not support either conclusion. You have left Science behind and are talking about _your_ Faith. Yours. And it's a faith that is failing, outmoded, obsolete, in this modern world.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 11:37:22 AM
No, you have just emitted a classic "Argument from Ignorance". This takes this form: We don't know why this seemingly miraculous stuff exists, therefore it is because God willed it.

There is no evidence for the conclusion, contained in the premises. I could just as well tell you NO, not your God, but rather the Flying Spaghetti Monster made all of this, three days ago, and planted false memories of childhood in everybody, just for fun.

Your conclusion may be true, or it may be false ... but your premises and your mode of reasoning do not support either conclusion. You have left Science behind and are talking about _your_ Faith. Yours. And it's a faith that is failing, outmoded, obsolete, in this modern world.

And who says logic is everything there is and that the only means to explain our reality. What is considered logic i could tell you is a lacking tool and maybe a mistaken one as well. most things in nature point to a creator but today's intellectual narcissism tries to explain everything logically and put god out of the equation. but usually this narcissism ends up fooling itself. what is the logical process you go through when you love your child? when you trust you wife with blind faith at home and dont send private detectives to search her to make an extreme example, and you trust to live your life with her. or when you trust any person, friends etc. (and if God is a personal entity why to think the relationship can be based on anything else than trust but instead in egoistical attempts to discover him with our brainpower?(like all dumb intellectual narcissists try to do and in fact just chase their tail)). whats the logic behind heroes that sacrifice themselves for the others? whats the logic behind a mother's love that can die to protect her child? whats the logic of believing a series of random events can create a spectacular universe, with physical laws, mathematically understandable, hospital to humans etc? and dont start with your national geographic documentaries stuff about the planet being hostile. you know very well what im talking about. about a gazillion of "ridiculous coincidences" that allowed and allow us to live and develop here as a species. how comes we are the only logical being with a soul? why didnt other species "evolve like us"? why people have inate inclination to spirituality and search for meaning of existance? how comes babies from the womb of their mother without developed brain gain experiences, understand things etc if there is no soul and there is only brain? how comes patients with brain death arent really dead and the body still does living functions if there isnt a soul that keeps the human alive? i dont know what you say about spaghetti monsters but the miracles happen in the name of Jesus Christ the God of my religion. this saint for example that is dead for 50 years and his skin is like that of a sleeping baby. imperishable holy relics is a common phenomenon in christianity amongst many other godgiven miracles. how can the laws of nature be overcome if not by their creator? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSaiQGVatZE

Now we do know why, or rather how, a boat makes a bow wave. You can't really move through the water without making one and the faster you go the bigger the wave. Charges make magnetic fields as they move relative to the observer. If the observer moves along with the charge... you don't see the magnetic field (because the field just describes how a thing will move and you are already moving that way) but you do see the electric field from the charge which isn't moving with respect to you. Now that duality of electric and magnetic fields, discriminated only by relative motion, is, to me, a grand mystery of the Universe. "Why" does that happen? Well, some people believe that that question can be answered in a meaningful way, and that's why they go out and build particle accelerators and learn complex mathematics. I just look around in awe, myself, and give thanks that things are the way they are. Maybe they could be different... but I doubt it. eta: The electron's charge cannot be removed from it, but an electron isn't "just" a packet of the Unit Negative charge. It has mass and spin angular momentum as well. What is really weird is that it does not appear to have a "size"... it is considered a point particle, or a probability cloud.




Now we are getting there.
English is not my first language so my questions can be a bit confusing.

moderator why you dont post my comment?

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 11:32:28 AM
(And it's spelt "genius" ...  ;) )

Agreed that you are a genius(not genious).

1) A charged sphere when set in motion will produce a magnetic field. You said 'yes'.

   Now think about a sphere fixed with  generator coils which can receive the magnetic flux suitably when magnetic  field is produced on
   the  sphere. Charge the sphere to the full with any type of charge, fix it to a speed motor or pulse motor which developes high speed
   with negligible input energy on 'no load'.

   When you start the motor, the charged sphere rotates and developes magnetic field which varies from zero to maximum.  If you switch
   off the motor and halt the sphere, magnetic field collapses from maximum to zero. In both cases  the generator coils fixed to the sphere
   generate electricity as per induction rules.    A huge magnetic field rising and collapsing, will generate considerable energy in the coils. At 
   the same time the rotating sphere will not experience any  slowing down force from the generator coils because these coils are fixed on
   the sphere and will be  rotating with sphere.

   Hence there will be no load on motor even if you apply electrical load on coils.

   So, you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing lenz's slowing down force. Your input  power to the motor will
   be only to overcome friction and any other losses which will be negligible.    Whereas  in  a normal generator when you apply electrical
   load,  lenz's forces corresponding to the load act on the prime mover  to conserve energy.

   Hence you have a overunity generator.


2) Reason for why  mass falls down instead of up is well known but reason for 'why moving positive charge doesnot produce anti-magnetic
    field' is not known.

    A moving positive charge not producing anti-magnetic field indicates that positive and negative charges are not  different in characters
    (don't know the right word) but different only in directions. Graphically a positve charge  emits 'lines of force' in outward direction and
    electron should receive lines of force inward direction.

    So, theoritically by bending these fields (or lines of force) by repulsion you can change the nature of charges.   I mean  you can make a
    negatively charged proton and positively charged electron!!

3) I don't believe that any generator can produce a DC as pure as produced by a battery. Generator can produce only a  pulsed DC.   I
    personally don't believe that a generator works on the principle of 'cutting of the flux'.     It works  on the principle of 'on & off' of the
    flux.    Anyway my knowledge in this field is limited and I leave it you.

PS : Now are you prepared to hammer a crowbar on my....

So we put a current through a wire. Electrons flow in one direction and their mag fields also have 'common' orientation around the wire depending on electron flow direction.  Thats odd.  This must mean that the electron has a positive and negative 'electrical' sides to them also. :o

Mags

Quote from: Newton II on October 06, 2014, 03:23:40 PM^{snapped for long text, see the origin above}

Before you make another question, I really, REALLY recommend you to see the site I mentioned somewhat earlier: amasci.com

Quote from: Magluvin on October 07, 2014, 12:34:30 AM
So we put a current through a wire. Electrons flow in one direction and their mag fields also have 'common' orientation around the wire depending on electron flow direction.  Thats odd.  This must mean that the electron has a positive and negative 'electrical' sides to them also. :o

Mags

You are exactly right.   Nothing in this universe is 'mono'  everything is 'duo'.   Positive and negative sides exist at all points in an electric field just as north and south poles exist at all points in a magnetic field.     It is only the direction that matters.

Well, i got some news for yall.

You are all WRONG...  and especially that tinsel twat know it all.

Beginning to understand?? haha give me a break !! your not even close to beginning

Forget everything and i do mean everything you believe and start over.
And don't be fooled by know it all's they know nothing, they think they do but in reality they know nothing.

Charles Proteus Steinmetz could be a good start.
If you really want some answers, Absorb his works, especially the dielectric part and the fibrous part and the part about reflection and once you understand that you will have no more questions, and you can immediately pick out those few that really gained some understanding.
Also it makes things a lot more logical in stead of discussing and speculation combined with learned false assumptions.

You're coming on a little strong don't you think Marco? Chill out man.  8)

I've not read much of Steinmetz, but yes it is good info.

Snapped

Quote from: Turbo on October 07, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
You are all WRONG... 

I see nothing contradictory or wrong in our discussion comparing Steinmetz lectures.

Quote from: Turbo on October 07, 2014, 01:35:54 PM
Well, i got some news for yall.

You are all WRONG...  and especially that tinsel twat know it all.

Go ahead, refute anything I've said, with checkable outside references, facts, or demonstrations of your own. Or continue to insult me with empty insults like the ignorant troll you are. Your choice.

Quote

Beginning to understand?? haha give me a break !! your not even close to beginning

Forget everything and i do mean everything you believe and start over.
And don't be fooled by know it all's they know nothing, they think they do but in reality they know nothing.

And yet, we "know it alls" (who don't actually pretend to know it "all" like you do) are able to use our "nothing" knowledge to engineer, build stuff, predict how it will work and see our predictions validated by experiment. Our knowledge allows us to observe, describe, control, and predict reality in a coherent, universally understood manner. Go ahead, forget Ohm's Law and Maxwell's Equations and start over. When you can use YOUR idea of magnetism to design and build a CRT that can display an image... and that is somehow different than the ones we "know it alls" have designed... be sure to let me know. But I'm not going to hold my breath, waiting for you to put your words into actions, because I know that you cannot.

Quote

Charles Proteus Steinmetz could be a good start.
If you really want some answers, Absorb his works, especially the dielectric part and the fibrous part and the part about reflection and once you understand that you will have no more questions, and you can immediately pick out those few that really gained some understanding.
Also it makes things a lot more logical in stead of discussing and speculation combined with learned false assumptions.

Go ahead, Turbo, educate us. Show us something that Steinmetz predicted that isn't completely covered by the standard modern theory of quantum electrodynamics. Be sure to include your YouTube video of the apparatus, and explain fully why the modern description of events isn't adequate or is wrong.

Re the video "the kick".... what is the inductance of 25 cm of #20 solid copper wire? 

By saying "there is no coil" the presenter is implying that what is shown doesn't depend on the inductance of the wire. Is that true, or not? Is it at all possible that there is some capacitive coupling across the insulation of the wire, to his hand?

Newton II:

QuoteSo, when a moving negative charge produces magnetic field, a
     moving positive charge should produce anti-magnetic field.  But it just produces a magnetic field in opposite direction corresponding to
     the negative charge flow.

You are thinking things through.  To me it means you are showing your 'old' way of thinking and then going to the next step.  For starters you show what we can call "crazy logic" with nothing to back it up.  There is no such thing as an "anti-magnetic field," and I am pretty sure that you know that.  So why even say it?  It's akin to making a statement like this, "The North pole is very cold so the opposite South pole must be very hot."  Then you recover because you are fully aware of the right-hand rule.  The right-hand rule is REALITY.  I think it's important for people to resist the irrational urge to accept fake concepts and ideas that people put forward just because they 'sound cool.'  These are important principles in science and how to govern your thinking processes.  The formula for the magnetic field at a given point in space relative to a moving point charge is is attached to this posting.  It's important for people to realize that this formula applies to a point anywhere in ALL SPACE, the Universe.  It's absolutely real and verifiable and people need to understand this.  We have the ability to translate observed reality into a mathematical formula.  That's why we can design bridges and skyscrapers.

QuoteNow think about a sphere fixed with  generator coils which can receive the magnetic flux suitably when magnetic  field is produced on
   the  sphere. Charge the sphere to the full with any type of charge, fix it to a speed motor or pulse motor which developes high speed
   with negligible input energy on 'no load'.

   When you start the motor, the charged sphere rotates and developes magnetic field which varies from zero to maximum.  If you switch
   off the motor and halt the sphere, magnetic field collapses from maximum to zero. In both cases  the generator coils fixed to the sphere
   generate electricity as per induction rules.    A huge magnetic field rising and collapsing, will generate considerable energy in the coils. At 
   the same time the rotating sphere will not experience any  slowing down force from the generator coils because these coils are fixed on
   the sphere and will be  rotating with sphere.

   Hence there will be no load on motor even if you apply electrical load on coils.

   So, you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing lenz's slowing down force.

Not a chance in the world will you have a generator which generates electricity without experiencing Lenz drag. 

The first thing that you have to do if you want to explore this further is make a physical diagram of what you are talking about and an equivalent schematic diagram.  I read your description and it is ambiguous and lacking in sufficient detail.  That's a classic issue on the forums, talking about a circuit with no schematic, no discussing of the timing of the system, no discussing of the input and output, etc.  It simply doesn't work like that in real life.  If you are up to the challenge then great, or we can just forget about it.  It's your choice.

MileHigh

Dear Milehigh sir,

I appreciate your patience in replying to ignorant questions of ignorant people like me.

An ignorant person may think that head is full of ear wax which comes out of hoels in ears or it is full of mucus which comes out of holes in the nose (nostrils) just like water comes out of a pipe connected to a overhead tank.    There is nothing wrong in the logic.  But learned people like you should tell them that there is brain inside the head and these things come out of some other place.

I feel blessed if you consider me as your 'old' student, take pain in answering my ignorant questions and help me in getting rid of my ignorance.

1) When dirac spoke about 'anti matter' other scientists suggested psychiatric treatment for him. But later his theory  was proved
    experimentally.     When something called as 'anti matter' exists, what is wrong in thinking that corresponding 'anti-field' also exists? 

2) Lenz's drag (as mechanical force) comes into picture only when there is physical relative motion between coil and magnetic field. Since
    both coil and magnetic field are rotating along with sphere with no relative motion between them, there is no chance of lenz's drag (as
    mechanical force) in that scheme.   

3) The equation shown in the image - does it refer to a charge moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) or it applies to a
    charge moving under the influence of a mechanical force also?   Please confirm.
 
    Sun is a huge positively charged sphere rotating on its own axis and completes one rotation in 26 days. Considering  the size of the sun,
    the velocity developed at its outer surface should be very high.    Does  sun  develope a huge  magnetic field  around it due to this
    motion or high temperature of sun prevents it from producing magnetic field?

4) I don't think that a moving charge under the influence of mechanical force developes a magnetic field at all. A rotating charged sphere
    developes kinetic energy due to its mass and not magnetic field.   Only a charge moving under the influence of electric potential
    developes a magnetic field.    Can you please clarify?

5) I don't see anything great in humans building bridges and skyscrapers becuase even birds and insects are capable of  building
    nests/hives to an engineering class just by intuition.  Intelligence in humans is also a form of intuition and they have to thank God for
    giving them that intuition.


             

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 07, 2014, 08:19:05 PM
And yet, we "know it alls" (who don't actually pretend to know it "all" like you do) are able to use our "nothing" knowledge to engineer, build stuff, predict how it will work and see our predictions validated by experiment. Our knowledge allows us to observe, describe, control, and predict reality in a coherent, universally understood manner.

You are making a classical error in understanding here and for once i will point you to your error in understanding which is as follows:

To know how to use something is not necessarily the same as knowing how something works.

You can know how to drive a car without knowing how it actually works, as many do and luckily we got many great mechanics and engineers around that do know how a car works..

In dielectricity this is unfortunatly not so.

Yes you can predict how something will work and if you do the calculations correctly it will do that, but it is not the same as knowing what it actually does or how it produces your 'predicted' results there is a distinct difference and when you go into the territory outside of your predictions, your just speculating about what you think or what seems to be the best match according to your specific knowledge.

So in essence you draw on what you have learned and assume it to be correct, but you know verry well as i do that most people havent got a clue when it comes to the underlying phenomena.

That said i like to adress another point RE: The Kick wire
It is a bit sad to see you draw your set of conclusions on that one thing that is shown to you.
Do you really think that was the only experiment performed?
It was not and i think it's naieve to think that.
There were done many, many experiments including those related to 'bodily capacitance'
It is of utmost importance not to imediatly try to explain away something you observe by comparing it to your personal knowledge base simply because if your knowledge base is faulty, so will be your explenation.

In stead try to explain it from what is called the 'know nothing' state and you will receive the correct questions in stead of the faulty answers.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 07, 2014, 08:19:05 PM
Go ahead, forget Ohm's Law and Maxwell's Equations and start over. When you can use YOUR idea of magnetism to design and build a CRT that can display an image... and that is somehow different than the ones we "know it alls" have designed... be sure to let me know. But I'm not going to hold my breath, waiting for you to put your words into actions, because I know that you cannot.

Go ahead, Turbo, educate us. Show us something that Steinmetz predicted that isn't completely covered by the standard modern theory of quantum electrodynamics. Be sure to include your YouTube video of the apparatus, and explain fully why the modern description of events isn't adequate or is wrong.

Again, I'd say there is a immerse difference between trying to explain something away by modern assumptions and what is really going on it is the most logical step to take the route that fits best but this does NOT mean it is therefore correct error, error.
It is wrong simply because what is really going on does not even come close to what is assumed that is going on how hard can it be to understand the fact that most people are not actually sure about what is going on and there is a rather large chance the applied theory could be wrong, or in the best, incorrect.
Moreover, many 'old' and forgotten experiments show and confirm this but no, old stuff can never be as advanced and correct as the latest ideas, right?
So as a result i would say that the old is even so more correct then the new, which actually shows the direction as to where we are heading.
And i am a pointer, not an educator i remind and point you to your errors and to these facts that once you leave the calculated part you are just guessing and bringing up fancy names doesn't help because they still end with 'theory' which is based on well you know what it means.
Comparing Steinmetz to modern quantum electrodynamics is like comparing a cow to a chicken i am not sure how you would do that.
Also i give you reference to people whom studied these areas of interest with a different view, a view that will force you to re think what you actually know thus by comparing what you know to what they left in their writings your view will be expanded, often in another direction and as a result, you will start to see different pictures, pictures you had not seen before.

I really do not know what to say in stead of the above and i am not interested in this or that discussions i only want the people to know that there are other sources with different probably more logical material available.
The funny thing is that if you go back in history you will find that people were actually closer to the beginning in the beginning but drifted away in the wrong direction so moving actually away from beginning to understand and well ending where we are at today which is basicly knowing how to make it work without knowing how it works its a visual circle actually an endless loop as we call it and unless we go back to fix our errors the questions remain the same. 

If you could explain what "dielectricity" actually is it would be a great help
  'cause I can't start understanding 'til I can master that one word.
    Many thanks,in anticipation,
                           John.

Well John when it comes to the magnetic field we all seem to understand it has a fibrous structure.

Most have seen the magnet + iron fillings or even ferro fluids mark the shape of the field lines.
Mose have heard the Barkhausen snapping noise,
and most know about magnetic saturation. 

But when it comes to the dielectric part they all of a sudden start to speak in terms of 'charge' or 'potential difference'
How many know the actual structure of the dielectric field?
Look at a corona discharge or at a spark or lightning or the crackling noise when you wave your hand over a charged crt.
The dielectric field is also fibrous but it does not paint the same picture.
Magnetic field lines are closed whereas dielectric field lines are open.
What does this say about dielectric saturation?
How many people here work with dielectric fields in stead of endlessly waving coils past magnets, magnets past coils?

You know about the current carrying wire giving rise to a magnetic field, you know what happens to the magnetic field between two current carrying wires running in opposite direction.
But what do you know about the dielectric field that exists between these two wires?
Or between the dielectric (fibrous) field lines between the plates of a vacuum tube?

No then all of a sudden we start to mumble about charges and moving electrons ?  ::)

So if they are both fibrous in nature then why does it have to be particles and charge in one and field lines in the other?
How about we swap them?
Magnetic particles and electron lines?
The magnetic cloud around a (hot) permanent magnet?

Why not just use lines of force for the both of them, closed magnetic lines, open dielectric lines, which have a certain influence on each other.
That's right, drop the electrons, from now it's only moving field lines open and closed forming interference patterns.
What can we do with that?

What happens with a hot piece of iron or magnet? loses strength? holds less field lines? Curie point?
We all know about that right.
The electron cloud around the hot cathode, what does it mean in terms of field lines? we dropped the electron remember.
More field lines? or less what can be said about the existence of a dielectric 'Curie' point?
Who knows ?
So what is assumed to be boiled off electrons, escaped into the electron cloud, less binding force surface electrons etc. may very well be something entirely different but at the same time something remarkably common when compared to it's magnetic lines of force brother, but just having a different pattern.
The vacuum cathode is a bad example just the dielectric field lines between two opposed charged insulated conductors will do.
Because you need  two. why? well open lines remember that means FROM - TO and not AROUND as in closed magnetic lines and that .......could actually mean something.

But they said " it doesn't do anything so let's throw it away".
Little could they know.
And now we are left only with the magnetic part, waving coils past magnets, magnets past coils..

And you are asking me to explain what it actually is whilst i am thinking, if Magnetic is field lines, if Dielectric is field lines, then what about Gravity? Fibrous structure or not? i mean we already got two that are.

I hope that will help you somehow.

There are some good books and videos around if your willing to look for it.

Would you mind compiling a short list.

Snapped

Quote from: Newton II on October 08, 2014, 04:29:14 AM

These kind of dilemmas require experiments. Since our knowledge does not answer it and even our senses can dupe us: "When something called as 'anti matter' exists". Whatever whoever answers these questions without experiments, it will be only non-verifiable SUGGESTIONS.

Quote from: minnie on October 08, 2014, 06:50:13 AM


If you could explain what "dielectricity" actually is it would be a great help
  'cause I can't start understanding 'til I can master that one word.
    Many thanks,in anticipation,
                           John.

See/visit my earlier suggestion: amasci.com

Turbo: "Comparing Steinmetz to modern quantum electrodynamics is like comparing a cow to a chicken i am not sure how you would do that."
Examples?

Quote"Well John when it comes to the magnetic field we all seem to understand it has a fibrous structure.

Most have seen the magnet + iron fillings or even ferro fluids mark the shape of the field lines."

Sure, and a topographic map shows that the Earth is made up of horizontal layers precisely 10 meters apart.

Turbo, you are pushing the same line of mistaken BS that your puppetmaster pushes.

There is NO "FIBROUS STRUCTURE" to the magnetic or electric field. "Field lines" are precisely defined mathematical entities that are useful for computation but there is no corresponding physical structure that is a "fiber" of a magnetic or electric field.
Iron filings and ferrofluids do not "mark the shape of field lines", they assume least-energy configurations by orienting the long axes of the particles and clumps of particles along the local gradient of the field. People who do not understand the mathematics see these patterns and assume they are seeing some kind of map of "field lines". Sure, and if you pour water into a depression in the ground, the top surface of the water will mark the level of one of the horizontal slices of the planet that a topo map shows you.

And before you make your assumptions about who has done what with what fields, perhaps you should do your homework. Where are YOUR demonstrations of electric field phenomena? Where are YOUR static machines, your "megavolt Tesla coils", your demonstrations and references that back up your silly claims? You are keeping them very well hidden.

Do you see any magnets, coils, etc that are responsible for what is happening here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)

Fibrous structures is nonsense.  It's just one of many myths and misconceptions that are created on the forums.  How many forum regulars believe that the high-voltage spike from a coil discharging into a high-impedance load "taps into the aether and gets free energy from the aether/vacuum?"  How many believe that if you "chop" a coil with a transistor by shorting it out driven by a high-frequency square wave the same alleged phenomenon happens?

I am willing to bet you that many people believe this.  Many times I have challenged people that believe this to conduct an experiment and show data that confirms their beliefs.  I have never had someone respond to the challenge.  Instead all that I have heard is stony silence.

These are examples of people wanting to believe and therefore "by my wanting to believe in something that must make it true."  It's simply completely wrong.

Then Turbo wants to "reinvent" what sounds like an electric field and calls it a "dielectric field."

Then he and many others pose "thought provoking questions" but never attempt to provide the answers.

Another classic line, "We don't know everything."  Or, "Laws are just ideas proposed by men."  Or, "Laws are made to be broken."

These things just don't work like this in real life.  Instead of rhetorical navel-gazing questions, prove something if you have conviction about a far-fetched idea.  Prove it!  Stop just talking trash with no substance.

We all know where the trash talk can end.  Look at Naima Feagin's trash talk.  It's absolutely grotesque and she is laughing all the way to the bank.

Look at the Akula nonsense.  People were convinced that it was real and worked before they even ordered their PCBs.  It was just another stupid circuit that pulsed coils and did NOTHING.  What happened to the people that got the PCBs and built the circuit?  Nothing.

Akula is just a Russian mental masturbator.  He makes a clip and watches people jump through hoops and watches the video clips that they make and reads the threads that they make.  It gives him a feeling of power.  That's all it is, a nutcase making people jump through hoops for his own perverse thrills.

And rabid believers will actually say in all seriousness that, "Akula was bought out."

Webby1:  Where is Wayne and his ridiculous nonsensical idiocy?  I suppose the answer is nowhere.  He will disappear just like Richard from Magnacoaster.  Both of them sounded like complete idiots when they talked about their stuff.  Yet people wanted to believe.  They are just another version of Akula but instead of running for the Kleenex they ran to the bank.

Exactly.

First the man denies it's existence, and then posts a picture showing it's existence.
And off course, as always, the were is your part.

I said what i wanted to say and i will leave it there since i am convinced it is enough to communicate the message.

I know it's hard to grasp the idea of field lines between all conducting objects in the universe but this is exactly what makes it so interesting because it would imply that every mobile phone or tablet or laptop or in fact any conducting object is already connected to one another by nature... and always has.
On another note this opens up more possibilities because you can work from open circuit to open circuit which is impossible where closed circuits are used, and this is also the area that has got room for 'external input' and would imply that a change of potential on one conducting object has to influence all other conductive objects in the universe but i better not go there it just too much.

Newton II:

QuoteI appreciate your patience in replying to ignorant questions of ignorant people like me.

An ignorant person may think that head is full of ear wax which comes out of hoels in ears or it is full of mucus which comes out of holes in the nose (nostrils) just like water comes out of a pipe connected to a overhead tank.    There is nothing wrong in the logic.  But learned people like you should tell them that there is brain inside the head and these things come out of some other place.

You don't have to put on a show and play the wounded dove.  Nor do you have to play act with the fake patronizing attitude and the fake self-depreciating comments.

Do you want me to spend an extra 1/2 hour so that my response is just oh so perfectly politically correct for your sensitive ears?  Do I need to choose every word carefully so that you are not "wounded" by my statements?

How about we just get real and make our points without any fake drama?

Quote1) When dirac spoke about 'anti matter' other scientists suggested psychiatric treatment for him. But later his theory  was proved
    experimentally.     When something called as 'anti matter' exists, what is wrong in thinking that corresponding 'anti-field' also exists?

I hate these illogical connections that people make, and I have observed you do it many times.  "They said the Titanic would not sink but it did sink.  Therefore electric discharges could be plasma leaking in from an alternate universe."  That's nonsense and you should try to avoid that false logic.

QuoteLenz's drag (as mechanical force) comes into picture only when there is physical relative motion between coil and magnetic field. Since
    both coil and magnetic field are rotating along with sphere with no relative motion between them, there is no chance of lenz's drag (as
    mechanical force) in that scheme. 

The clip and formula is about a moving point charge.  You are talking about a stationary rotating sphere of charge.  Do you see a problem there?

QuoteSun is a huge positively charged sphere rotating on its own axis and completes one rotation in 26 days. Considering  the size of the sun,
    the velocity developed at its outer surface should be very high.    Does  sun  develope a huge  magnetic field  around it due to this
    motion or high temperature of sun prevents it from producing magnetic field?

The thermo-nuclear-reactor sun has nothing to do with what we are talking about whatsoever.  They said the Titanic would not sink, you know.

QuoteI don't see anything great in humans building bridges and skyscrapers becuase even birds and insects are capable of  building
    nests/hives to an engineering class just by intuition.  Intelligence in humans is also a form of intuition and they have to thank God for
    giving them that intuition.

That's another nonsensical point that does not advance your argument at all because it is irrelevant to the discussion.

You supplied no diagram and no equivalent circuit and made no attempt to truly describe the operation of your proposed mechanism.  And to repeat, your proposed system has nothing to do with a moving point charge, and a moving point charge is supposedly the root from which your argument is made.

The issue with you is the propensity to make connections between ideas when in fact the connections are not there.

If you want to completely ignore the discussion about a moving point charge, and discuss how a rotating sphere of charge with some kind of coil configuration can give you a generator with no Lenz drag then fine.  Let's completely forget about a moving point charge and start from scratch.  If you are willing to provide the physical and schematic diagrams and make a timing diagram that shows how the electric circuit allegedly works, then fine.  But if you can only offer pie-in-the-sky prose that describes something from your imagination, then forget it, I will not be interested.

I can sum it up with three words, "please be real."

MileHigh

Webby:

You won't comment on that fool because he is a fraud.  You want another sign that he is a fraud?  Take a look at the "job openings" slide that I just captured today and posted here.  I am willing to bet you that the "job openings" are the same now as they were two years ago.  What does that say?

It says that he is a fake company and the job openings are a pretense to make it appear that he is a real company to lure in gullible investors.  He is not hiring anybody, the slide on his website is a LIE.

Sorry for going off-topic but it at least does fall under the "myths and misconceptions" umbrella.

Quotea point charge, these things are taught as if they actually exist

Did you ever take a physics class where you do the derivation showing that a sphere of mass can be modeled as a single point of the same mass?  These are intellectual "leaps" that help you to understand the real world.  They do not teach you in school that field lines are real lines, real physical things.  I don't know where you are getting that from.

Your argument is similar to the case when you tell someone that an inductor is actually a wire of zero resistance, and you can get a voltage across that zero-ohm wire.  Because they can't understand the concept of inductance their eyes glaze over and they accuse you of talking nonsense disconnected from the "real world" of inductors with resistive wire.

Anyway, naturally this thread only reaches a few eyeballs.  Some time within the next 24 hours you will see an uninformed person make a posting that includes a myth or misconception about magnets or magnetism.  It may even be someone that read this entire thread.

MileHigh

  I first figured out how current through a static magnetic field forced the current carrying metal to move by reading a very old book published around 1901 dealing with electromagnetism.  It was a practical guide for electric motor technicians and engineers.  Below is a picture I drew up fast to duplicate the much better diagram from the book.  The magnetic field is like water blowing across the ocean surface.  In the diagram this is from left to right.   The conductor current is flowing into the page.   (could be out long time since I did any right-hand left hand stuff)   A circular flow of magnetic current is created as indicated by the arrow around the conductor surface.   The rotating current increases the total magnetic pressure on top of the conductor whereas it decreases the magnetic pressure below the conductor.  Therefore the conductor moves from the top of the page to the bottom.  Something like an airplane wing or a sail.  The wind because of it's viscosity has to travel faster around the bulge in the wing or sail.  This decreases the pressure.   The lower side of the wing or the more or less flat side of the sail allows the wind to flow unimpeded and at a velocity less than the air traveling the bulge.  The split stream converges at the trailing edge of the wing or sail at the same velocity as the bulk flow of air relavent to the craft.  Anyway the pressure is greater under the wing than it is on top and this lifts the craft up as the ambient pressure continually tries to fill the partial vacuum created by the fast moving air. 
 

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 08, 2014, 10:43:23 AM
Sure, and a topographic map shows that the Earth is made up of horizontal layers precisely 10 meters apart.

Turbo, you are pushing the same line of mistaken BS that your puppetmaster pushes.

There is NO "FIBROUS STRUCTURE" to the magnetic or electric field. "Field lines" are precisely defined mathematical entities that are useful for computation but there is no corresponding physical structure that is a "fiber" of a magnetic or electric field.
Iron filings and ferrofluids do not "mark the shape of field lines", they assume least-energy configurations by orienting the long axes of the particles and clumps of particles along the local gradient of the field. People who do not understand the mathematics see these patterns and assume they are seeing some kind of map of "field lines". Sure, and if you pour water into a depression in the ground, the top surface of the water will mark the level of one of the horizontal slices of the planet that a topo map shows you.

And before you make your assumptions about who has done what with what fields, perhaps you should do your homework. Where are YOUR demonstrations of electric field phenomena? Where are YOUR static machines, your "megavolt Tesla coils", your demonstrations and references that back up your silly claims? You are keeping them very well hidden.

Do you see any magnets, coils, etc that are responsible for what is happening here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)

Well, it's like this.

When we construct a model of a phenomenon, we may, or, may not, happen to hit upon  the exactly right visualization that will coincide with what we see when we look with clairvoyant vision upon that phenomenon and see it in its intrinsic real reality exactly like God sees it.

So, if the Faraday model of field lines proves to work out to give the theorists and the engineers and you and me and all the rest of us good and useful answers, then we, still in our non-clairvoyant bewildered mere human condition, have no good basis to say that the field line model is not real. It may be real or it may be fantasy, but if it works, then you don't have any case for claiming that it is not real.

And likewise, I do not have a conclusive case for saying that it is real because I am just so sure that that is how God sees it.

You cannot prove one way or the other just like I cannot prove one way or the other.

Perhaps you disagree.....


G'day mate
CANGAS 86

Quote from: MileHigh on October 08, 2014, 02:45:36 PM

I can sum it up with three words, "please be real."

MileHigh

To be very clear, I have got a simple question :

When you pass a DC through a conductor, electrons flow or move like 'Newton balls' and a magnetic field is created around the conductor conforming to right hand thumb rule.   

Instead of passing a DC through the conductor, fully charge the conductor with electrons and move the conductor itself physically by applying mechanical force,  will the conductor create a magnetic field around it?   YES or NO.

If you say 'YES', it will have its own implications.  If you say 'NO',  then you will be conforming that electric charges moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) only will produce magnetic fields. 

If you are not interested, please don't respond. 

  To get a permanent magnet motor to run it is very simple.  Polarize a permanent magnet so that it creates a magnetic field that duplicates the magnetic field of a copper wire conducting dc current.   If you can youve got a winner.   Replace conductor in below picture with said dynamic permanent magnetic thing and watch her spin for 400 years, ::)

Quote from: Newton II on October 09, 2014, 01:27:28 AM

To be very clear, I have got a simple question :

When you pass a DC through a conductor, electrons flow or move like 'Newton balls' and a magnetic field is created around the conductor conforming to right hand thumb rule.   

Instead of passing a DC through the conductor, fully charge the conductor with electrons and move the conductor itself physically by applying mechanical force,  will the conductor create a magnetic field around it?   YES or NO.

If you say 'YES', it will have its own implications.  If you say 'NO',  then you will be conforming that electric charges moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) only will produce magnetic fields. 

If you are not interested, please don't respond.

You already have my answer to this.
http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg419371/#msg419371

And here's a tiny bit more complicated answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li%C3%A9nard%E2%80%93Wiechert_potential

So let's see what MH has to say about it.

Quote from: Turbo on October 08, 2014, 02:31:40 PM
Exactly.

First the man denies it's existence, and then posts a picture showing it's existence.
And off course, as always, the were is your part.

I said what i wanted to say and i will leave it there since i am convinced it is enough to communicate the message.

I know it's hard to grasp the idea of field lines between all conducting objects in the universe but this is exactly what makes it so interesting because it would imply that every mobile phone or tablet or laptop or in fact any conducting object is already connected to one another by nature... and always has.
On another note this opens up more possibilities because you can work from open circuit to open circuit which is impossible where closed circuits are used, and this is also the area that has got room for 'external input' and would imply that a change of potential on one conducting object has to influence all other conductive objects in the universe but i better not go there it just too much.

(sic)

You are like the dog who looks at the master's finger, instead of where it's pointing, when the finger is pointing to something of much greater interest elsewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py-0dVJ4K_s

.

Magnetic field lines would be quite useful element in calculations. Do you know guys a formula which includes them? Especially supported by scientists who have them in their suggestions.

Quote from: sparks on October 09, 2014, 02:42:52 AM
  To get a permanent magnet motor to run it is very simple.  Polarize a permanent magnet so that it creates a magnetic field that duplicates the magnetic field of a copper wire conducting dc current.   If you can youve got a winner.   Replace conductor in below picture with said dynamic permanent magnetic thing and watch her spin for 400 years, ::)

Looks very simple.  Can it be like this? (see the attachment)

Quote from: sparks on October 08, 2014, 11:58:43 PM
  I first figured out how current through a static magnetic field forced the current carrying metal to move by reading a very old book published around 1901 dealing with electromagnetism.  It was a practical guide for electric motor technicians and engineers.  Below is a picture I drew up fast to duplicate the much better diagram from the book.  The magnetic field is like water blowing across the ocean surface.  In the diagram this is from left to right.   The conductor current is flowing into the page.   (could be out long time since I did any right-hand left hand stuff)   A circular flow of magnetic current is created as indicated by the arrow around the conductor surface.   The rotating current increases the total magnetic pressure on top of the conductor whereas it decreases the magnetic pressure below the conductor.  Therefore the conductor moves from the top of the page to the bottom.  Something like an airplane wing or a sail.  The wind because of it's viscosity has to travel faster around the bulge in the wing or sail.  This decreases the pressure.   The lower side of the wing or the more or less flat side of the sail allows the wind to flow unimpeded and at a velocity less than the air traveling the bulge.  The split stream converges at the trailing edge of the wing or sail at the same velocity as the bulk flow of air relavent to the craft.  Anyway the pressure is greater under the wing than it is on top and this lifts the craft up as the ambient pressure continually tries to fill the partial vacuum created by the fast moving air. 

Sparks:

Here is a clip that shows the force between two wires carrying electric current. One wire is modeled as the source of the external magnetic field and the other wire is modeled as the wire that experiences the force, so it is identical to your example.  The actual example starts in the middle of the clip.  I also attached the formula of as a screen capture.

The fundamental concept that it's all based on is that the current vector (magnitude and direction) of the wire that experiences a force interacts with the magnetic field vector (magnitude and direction) of the external magnetic field.   The force on the wire is proportional to the cross product of the current vector and the external magnetic field vector.

This is just one step above mastering magnets and magnetic fields.  What are vectors?  What's a dot product?  What's a cross product?  How does this relate to the right-hand rule?  If you are building motors and you are serious you have to master these concepts.

The explanation starts in the middle of the clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfDQFtY1n8E&list=UU6x7DywfEqLg-3Cg_JnyTlg

MileHigh

Quote from: CANGAS on October 09, 2014, 12:49:13 AM

Well, it's like this.

When we construct a model of a phenomenon, we may, or, may not, happen to hit upon  the exactly right visualization that will coincide with what we see when we look with clairvoyant vision upon that phenomenon and see it in its intrinsic real reality exactly like God sees it.

So, if the Faraday model of field lines proves to work out to give the theorists and the engineers and you and me and all the rest of us good and useful answers, then we, still in our non-clairvoyant bewildered mere human condition, have no good basis to say that the field line model is not real. It may be real or it may be fantasy, but if it works, then you don't have any case for claiming that it is not real.

And likewise, I do not have a conclusive case for saying that it is real because I am just so sure that that is how God sees it.

You cannot prove one way or the other just like I cannot prove one way or the other.

Perhaps you disagree.....


G'day mate
CANGAS 86

Cangas:

I disagree strongly.  Hopefully this new example will swat this nonsensical belief in literal "lines" or "threads" of magnetic field.  There are NO LINES.  The lines are there ONLY to help you visualize the strength and direction of the magnetic field, and that's all.

Look at the attached diagram.  Do you think that there are real "lines" in the air?  What is your common sense telling you?  Now apply that common sense to magnetic fields.

QuoteYou cannot prove one way or the other just like I cannot prove one way or the other.

You can't prove that there aren't pink elephants floating over the sky in the center of Greenland either, but you can use your common sense and not let yourself get led down a garden path because you see lines used as a visual aid in diagrams.

MileHigh

Quote from: Newton II on October 09, 2014, 01:27:28 AM

To be very clear, I have got a simple question :

When you pass a DC through a conductor, electrons flow or move like 'Newton balls' and a magnetic field is created around the conductor conforming to right hand thumb rule.   

Instead of passing a DC through the conductor, fully charge the conductor with electrons and move the conductor itself physically by applying mechanical force,  will the conductor create a magnetic field around it?   YES or NO.

If you say 'YES', it will have its own implications.  If you say 'NO',  then you will be conforming that electric charges moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) only will produce magnetic fields. 

If you are not interested, please don't respond.

Newton II:

When you pass DC current through a conductor there is no "Newton balls" phenomenon taking place.  To me "Newton balls" implies electrons enter one end of a conductor and "push" on adjacent electrons to form a chain reaction where electrons at the opposite end of the conductor get "pushed out."  That is not happening.

We are going to assume a real-world conductor with a very low resistance.  There will be a very low level electric field in this conductor such that there is a very low voltage drop from one end of the conductor to the other.  This low level electric field is what makes the electrons move.  Each individual electron is influenced by the electric field and thus they all move in the same direction at the same time.

QuoteInstead of passing a DC through the conductor, fully charge the conductor with electrons and move the conductor itself physically by applying mechanical force,  will the conductor create a magnetic field around it?   YES or NO.

NO because you can't "charge" the conductor because you are implying this conductor forms part of a circuit.  There is no net charge on a conductor that forms part of an electrical circuit.

What perhaps you are actually thinking is if you had an isolated conductor and you charged it up with static electricity then would it create a magnetic field if you then moved it by applying mechanical force to it.  In this situation it's just a variation on a moving point charge.  Instead of a moving point charge you are talking about a moving long thin cylinder of charge. That would create a magnetic field if you moved it.

MileHigh

Quote from: sparks on October 08, 2014, 11:58:43 PM
  I first figured out how current through a static magnetic field forced the current carrying metal to move by reading a very old book published around 1901 dealing with electromagnetism.  It was a practical guide for electric motor technicians and engineers.  Below is a picture I drew up fast to duplicate the much better diagram from the book.  The magnetic field is like water blowing across the ocean surface.  In the diagram this is from left to right.   The conductor current is flowing into the page.   (could be out long time since I did any right-hand left hand stuff)   A circular flow of magnetic current is created as indicated by the arrow around the conductor surface.   The rotating current increases the total magnetic pressure on top of the conductor whereas it decreases the magnetic pressure below the conductor.  Therefore the conductor moves from the top of the page to the bottom.  Something like an airplane wing or a sail.  The wind because of it's viscosity has to travel faster around the bulge in the wing or sail.  This decreases the pressure.   The lower side of the wing or the more or less flat side of the sail allows the wind to flow unimpeded and at a velocity less than the air traveling the bulge.  The split stream converges at the trailing edge of the wing or sail at the same velocity as the bulk flow of air relavent to the craft.  Anyway the pressure is greater under the wing than it is on top and this lifts the craft up as the ambient pressure continually tries to fill the partial vacuum created by the fast moving air. 

Hey Sparks

I have not played with iron wire coils yet, but supposedly they do produce a field with current. Its interesting what you are saying.

Say we run dc through a straight iron wire and we build a field around the wire, just like copper wire(I think), and if when we remove that current, is it possible that the iron wire could maintain at least some of the field in the orientation it was when current was flowing. Sort of like how a soft iron nail can retain a magnetized state N and S from end to end, is it possible for the iron wire to maintain a circular field around the wire after the current is removed.  Say we hit the wire with a momentary high discharge that creates an initially large field around the wire, would there possibly be any remanence of that field after the discharge ceases? A circular field with no true N or S ends to it. Dunno. But interesting thought. ;)

Mags

Mags

MH said,

Quote"When you pass DC current through a conductor there is no "Newton balls" phenomenon taking place.  To me "Newton balls" implies electrons enter one end of a conductor and "push" on adjacent electrons to form a chain reaction where electrons at the opposite end of the conductor get "pushed out."  That is not happening."

Oh? What if the end of that wire is connected to the cathode of an electron gun in a CRT? Where do the electrons in the beam come from, if not from out of the wire supplying the cathode?  Or have you gone over to the TA side, where you don't believe that there is a beam of electrons, focussed and directed by changing magnetic fields, in a CRT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray)

Quote from: Magluvin on October 09, 2014, 08:56:22 PM
Hey Sparks

I have not played with iron wire coils yet, but supposedly they do produce a field with current. Its interesting what you are saying.

Say we run dc through a straight iron wire and we build a field around the wire, just like copper wire(I think), and if when we remove that current, is it possible that the iron wire could maintain at least some of the field in the orientation it was when current was flowing. Sort of like how a soft iron nail can retain a magnetized state N and S from end to end, is it possible for the iron wire to maintain a circular field around the wire after the current is removed.  Say we hit the wire with a momentary high discharge that creates an initially large field around the wire, would there possibly be any remanence of that field after the discharge ceases? A circular field with no true N or S ends to it. Dunno. But interesting thought. ;)

Mags

Mags

A possible secondary experiment would be to apply enough current to heat the iron wire pretty good, then freeze the wire with freeze spray while removing the current.  ;D

off that topic, I had an idea to wind a copper wire around a plastic toroid, 4in dia, 1/2in thick, 1/2in deep.  1 layer. Then make a rotor with all magnets N pointing out. just used 2 mags in the test.  It was a slap together thing, a bit off balance in every way, but just tried.  When I applied current to the coil, sometimes the rotor turned CW, sometimes CCW.  The idea was to have the mags close to the inside part of the coil and have the N poles of the mags ride the field spin around those inner windings.  As in a DC motor without pole switching. I chose to use a non magnetic core so as not to have it absorb the field away from the mags.  But a core may help, havnt gotten there yet. Busy with life. Try to get to some experiments here n there. ;) Just throwing it out there. ;) ;D


Mags

MH said,

QuoteNO because you can't "charge" the conductor because you are implying this conductor forms part of a circuit.  There is no net charge on a conductor that forms part of an electrical circuit.

Charge up a capacitor with DC. The plates of the capacitor and the conductors connected to them have a net charge, equal and opposite since charge is a conserved quantity. Install the capacitor in an AC oscillating circuit and the plates and conductors attached to them will have net charges, alternating polarity as the capacitor charges and discharges and recharges in the opposite polarity. Right?

Current flow in a conductor is basically a process of equalizing charge pressure between more positive and more negative unbalanced regions. Only when current stops flowing is charge equalized; conversely, no current flows unless there is a charge imbalance between the ends of the wire. So if you look at a wire carrying current with a very sensitive instrument you will see a voltage drop along the wire, because the wire has a finite resistance. This means that there is a charge imbalance between the ends of the wire, that exists and that can be measured as long as current is flowing in the wire.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 09, 2014, 09:01:31 PM
MH said,
Oh? What if the end of that wire is connected to the cathode of an electron gun in a CRT? Where do the electrons in the beam come from, if not from out of the wire supplying the cathode?  Or have you gone over to the TA side, where you don't believe that there is a beam of electrons, focussed and directed by changing magnetic fields, in a CRT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray)

Also if we look at a wire run  from one place to another over a great distance, when we apply a current to one end of the wire, there is a latency as to when the other end of that wire produces output vs 'when' the input was introduced.  Say ground for return.  So it can be just like Newtons cradle and not all electrons moving in the wire at the same time, but a crowding at the input of electrons that eventually expands reaches the other end over time, depending on polarity. the input could be depleting electrons from the input end of the wire creating a lack of electrons at the input and yada yada yada. ;D

Mags

MileHigh, I believe, your implication(s) on electrons behavior in DC (Direct Current) in solid conductor are scientifically supported. Can you show us a link or any reference on that matter?

Edit:

Oops! MH, you are supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier)

Then we have a dilemma.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 09, 2014, 09:01:31 PM
MH said,
Oh? What if the end of that wire is connected to the cathode of an electron gun in a CRT? Where do the electrons in the beam come from, if not from out of the wire supplying the cathode?  Or have you gone over to the TA side, where you don't believe that there is a beam of electrons, focussed and directed by changing magnetic fields, in a CRT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray)

TK:

A CRT is a regular circuit with a current loop.  The electrons leave the hot cathode (using FET lingo we can all that the source), and then are accelerated by the anode plates and then strike the phosphor.  Then there is a wire on the side of the CRT that acts as the drain for the electrons to complete the circuit.  I am assuming that there may be a voltage jump when the electrons flow from the drain wire back to the hot cathode to sustain the current loop also.  Sorry, I haven't looked at a CRT schematic in many years.

I don't see where you imply there is an issue.  There is an electric field making the electrons move through the current loop just like there is in a wire in a conventional circuit.  Note also that the beam of electrons can be induced to change direction by either an external electric field or by an external magnetic field.  Isn't it the yoke that produces the raster scan?  (i.e. "deflecting coils.) So the yoke is bending the electron beam because it's generating an external magnetic field where there are two "ramp" stimuli, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.  I am assuming that there are CRTs that use horizontal and vertical ramp-function voltage potentials to do the same thing.  So instead of a yoke you have two sets of what look like big parallel plate capacitors, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on October 09, 2014, 10:27:51 PM
TK:

A CRT is a regular circuit with a current loop.  The electrons leave the hot cathode (using FET lingo we can all that the source), and then are accelerated by the anode plates and then strike the phosphor.  Then there is a wire on the side of the CRT that acts as the drain for the electrons to complete the circuit.  I am assuming that there may be a voltage jump when the electrons flow from the drain wire back to the hot cathode to sustain the current loop also.  Sorry, I haven't looked at a CRT schematic in many years.

I don't see where you imply there is an issue.  There is an electric field making the electrons move through the current loop just like there is in a wire in a conventional circuit.  Note also that the beam of electrons can be induced to change direction by either an external electric field or by an external magnetic field.  Isn't it the yoke that produces the raster scan?  (i.e. "deflecting coils.) So the yoke is bending the electron beam because it's generating an external magnetic field where there are two "ramp" stimuli, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.  I am assuming that there are CRTs that use horizontal and vertical ramp-function voltage potentials to do the same thing.  So instead of a yoke you have two sets of what look like big parallel plate capacitors, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.

MileHigh

"The electrons leave the hot cathode"

Hello Milehigh and TK,

If I recall correctly, I think that the cathode was usually "painted" with a chemical that had a rich supply of electrons available, that when heated with the filament, the electrons would be free to boil on the cathode.  This allowed the tube to have electrons to flow with the high voltage potential of the grid and screens and eventually the plate.

Liberty

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 09, 2014, 09:18:55 PM
MH said,
Charge up a capacitor with DC. The plates of the capacitor and the conductors connected to them have a net charge, equal and opposite since charge is a conserved quantity. Install the capacitor in an AC oscillating circuit and the plates and conductors attached to them will have net charges, alternating polarity as the capacitor charges and discharges and recharges in the opposite polarity. Right?

Current flow in a conductor is basically a process of equalizing charge pressure between more positive and more negative unbalanced regions. Only when current stops flowing is charge equalized; conversely, no current flows unless there is a charge imbalance between the ends of the wire. So if you look at a wire carrying current with a very sensitive instrument you will see a voltage drop along the wire, because the wire has a finite resistance. This means that there is a charge imbalance between the ends of the wire, that exists and that can be measured as long as current is flowing in the wire.

The capacitor will have charge and absence of charge on the two plates.  But the wires that supply the current to the two plates of the capacitor will not have any kind of charge imbalance or charge pressure in them.

"Charge imbalance at opposite ends of the wire to induce current flow" is the wrong way of looking it it.  A better way of looking at it is that electrons at some point in a circuit are at some potential level difference compared to some other point in the circuit.  We typically use "ground" as the reference point.  So some electrons can be at a high potential relative to ground but that does not imply some kind of "imbalance" where there are more bunched up electrons on one side of a wire and less bunched up electrons on the other side of a wire.  Yes that happens in capacitors, but they are a different animal.  Capacitors are energy storage devices.

Here is a simple example:

Circuit A is a 10-volt battery connected to a 1-ohm resistor.   Circuit B is a 1-volt battery connected to a 1-ohm resistor.

Are the electrons more densely bunched or imbalanced in Circuit A as compared to Circuit B?

The answer is no, the electrons are evenly distributed in both cases.  However, there are real differences in the relative potential of the electrons in the two circuits.

Let me just switch to conventional current for the rest of this discussion so I don't have to rework everything in my head.

What's the difference between the two circuits?

When the current enters the negative terminal of the battery in Circuit A, it's "takes an elevator ride up by 10 volts in potential" by the time it exits the battery at the positive terminal.  Then when the current hits the resistor it takes a "steep drop" and convert the potential energy into heat.

For Circuit B, the "elevator ride up" from the battery is only one volt, and the drop is a "not so steep drop" with less heat conversion.

Besides that, the current flow and the electron charge density is all the same in both circuits.

All the battery is doing is giving the current a voltage boost from the chemical reactions taking place.

.... see part two... ->

Continued...

So here is a thought experiment:   You have two batteries, one is 12 volts, the other one is one million volts.   There is no load on either battery.

When you look at the positive terminals of either battery, does the million-volt battery have more densely packed electrons on it?   (we will ignore the parasitic capacitance between the two terminals that will cause extra charge to appear on the terminals because we are not talking about that aspect.)

So, in my opinion, ignoring the parasitic capacitive effects, you will not observe any difference between the open-circuit positive terminals of each battery.  Both of the positive terminals, being made of metal, will be electrically neutral.   However, the potential of the electrons on the million-volt battery will be much higher that that of the 12-volt battery.

This is pretty "hard core" and I know my limits and all that stuff so I could be wrong in certain aspects.  By in general sense I am pretty confident that I am right.

Almost all circuits are driven by a voltage source.  That means the electric field is king.  The electric field snakes its way through all of the conductors in a circuit.   Some parts of the circuit, and some wires in the circuit may be at very high potential.  In cases like this you have a very very weak electric field inside the high-potential wires.  At the same time, the relative potential of the overall wire itself can be very high.   So you have a very weak electric field at a very high potential.  That may sound contradictory but in fact it's not.

Where you can get a very high electric field is in a resistor.  In wires the electric field strength is very very low, but in resistors the electric field strength can be very high (when you have a large voltage drop).  Sitting on top of all of this is the potential of any point in the circuit with respect to ground.

So you have two concepts of potential going on at the same time.  The first is the concept of relative potential to ground, and the second concept is the local differential potential.  In a wire the local differential potential is almost always very low.

And driving the whole thing is the electric field snaking its way through the wires.   The electrons are just along for the ride as all of this happens.  They don't get more closely bunched up at high voltage potentials.  If all of the electrons in a place in a circuit are at low potential, or if all of the electrons in a place in a circuit are at high potential, there is no difference in local electron density.

MileHigh

Quote from: Liberty on October 09, 2014, 10:44:03 PM
"The electrons leave the hot cathode"

Hello Milehigh and TK,

If I recall correctly, I think that the cathode was usually "painted" with a chemical that had a rich supply of electrons available, that when heated with the filament, the electrons would be free to boil on the cathode.  This allowed the tube to have electrons to flow with the high voltage potential of the grid and screens and eventually the plate.

Liberty

There is no such thing as a "chemical with a rich supply of electrons available."   The cathode is effectively two things at the sane time.  It is the secondary load of a transformer, that's how it heats up.  This is completely isolated from the main circuit which is the second component.  The main circuit pumps electrons through the cathode such that they end up striking the phosphor screen.  The main circuit is the source of the electrons.  The main circuit is not even "aware" that the cathode is also a load resistor for the secondary of a transformer.

The heat facilitates the liberation of the electrons, somewhat akin to heating water facilitates the more rapid evaporation of the water.

Quote from: MileHigh on October 09, 2014, 11:34:23 PM
There is no such thing as a "chemical with a rich supply of electrons available."   The cathode is effectively two things at the sane time.  It is the secondary load of a transformer, that's how it heats up.  This is completely isolated from the main circuit which is the second component.  The main circuit pumps electrons through the cathode such that they end up striking the phosphor screen.  The main circuit is the source of the electrons.  The main circuit is not even "aware" that the cathode is also a load resistor for the secondary of a transformer.

The heat facilitates the liberation of the electrons, somewhat akin to heating water facilitates the more rapid evaporation of the water.

Some tubes use an electrically separate cathode that is heated up by the filament.  Some tubes use the filament itself as the cathode. 

Quote from: MileHigh on October 09, 2014, 11:34:23 PM
There is no such thing as a "chemical with a rich supply of electrons available."   The cathode is effectively two things at the sane time.  It is the secondary load of a transformer, that's how it heats up.  This is completely isolated from the main circuit which is the second component.  The main circuit pumps electrons through the cathode such that they end up striking the phosphor screen.  The main circuit is the source of the electrons.  The main circuit is not even "aware" that the cathode is also a load resistor for the secondary of a transformer.

The heat facilitates the liberation of the electrons, somewhat akin to heating water facilitates the more rapid evaporation of the water.

I was taught that the manufactures use a chemical on the cathode.  If they don't, how does a tube wear out or get weak?  Tubes do become weak performers after a time, as there are tube testers to check their operation.  I always thought that it was because the chemical coating on the cathode eventually wore out after a while due to the heat of the filament.  Or not?

You may be right that there is a chemical coating on the cathode that facilitates the liberation of the electrons.  I honestly don't know.  When I read what you say I am wondering if a substance can act as a sort of catalyst for the liberation of the electrons.  But to be clear, "facilitating" is definitely not being a source of electrons.

For testing tubes, the filament can simply burn out like a light bulb.  I am guessing that that happens less frequently then the other failure mode.  That mode being when the tube loses its partial vacuum.  If the tube leaks and air enters, that will block the transmission of the electrons because they need a rarefied partial vacuum medium.

There are probably other failure modes.  I am old enough to remember tube testers being at the local pharmacy!  lol

It's scary to think that soon there will be adults that never saw CRT-based TVs for sale at Big Box stores, and adults that never walked into a video club to rent a movie!

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on October 09, 2014, 06:59:18 PM
Cangas:

I disagree strongly.  Hopefully this new example will swat this nonsensical belief in literal "lines" or "threads" of magnetic field.  There are NO LINES.  The lines are there ONLY to help you visualize the strength and direction of the magnetic field, and that's all.

Look at the attached diagram.  Do you think that there are real "lines" in the air?  What is your common sense telling you?  Now apply that common sense to magnetic fields.

You can't prove that there aren't pink elephants floating over the sky in the center of Greenland either, but you can use your common sense and not let yourself get led down a garden path because you see lines used as a visual aid in diagrams.

MileHigh

u speed reed dont u

It has been proven that speed readers miss over 90% of the content of the stuff they have fleetingly skimmed over. You have ran that up to either 99% or 100%.

My post blatantly stated that FIELD LINES are a useful MODEL.

My post blatantly stated that FIELD LINES may or may not be real, and cannot be proved to either exist or to not exist per se.

Just what is it that you disagree  with me about?

Do you know, or, do you just try to be disagreeable at any opportunity?


CANGAS 87

Quote from: MileHigh on October 09, 2014, 10:27:51 PM
TK:

A CRT is a regular circuit with a current loop.  The electrons leave the hot cathode (using FET lingo we can all that the source), and then are accelerated by the anode plates and then strike the phosphor.  Then there is a wire on the side of the CRT that acts as the drain for the electrons to complete the circuit.  I am assuming that there may be a voltage jump when the electrons flow from the drain wire back to the hot cathode to sustain the current loop also.  Sorry, I haven't looked at a CRT schematic in many years.

I don't see where you imply there is an issue. 

Here is what you said, that I was replying to:
"When you pass DC current through a conductor there is no "Newton balls" phenomenon taking place.  To me "Newton balls" implies electrons enter one end of a conductor and "push" on adjacent electrons to form a chain reaction where electrons at the opposite end of the conductor get "pushed out."  That is not happening."
But that is in fact _exactly_ what is happening. Where do the electrons come from in the cathode ray? THEY COME OUT OF THE WIRE that connects the cathode to the rest of the circuit. They are pushed through the wire by voltage... that is, the electric field, that comes from _individual unit charges_ pushing each other apart. That is what voltage IS !!!

Quote

There is an electric field making the electrons move through the current loop just like there is in a wire in a conventional circuit.  Note also that the beam of electrons can be induced to change direction by either an external electric field or by an external magnetic field.  Isn't it the yoke that produces the raster scan?  (i.e. "deflecting coils.) So the yoke is bending the electron beam because it's generating an external magnetic field where there are two "ramp" stimuli, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.  I am assuming that there are CRTs that use horizontal and vertical ramp-function voltage potentials to do the same thing.  So instead of a yoke you have two sets of what look like big parallel plate capacitors, one for the horizontal and one for the vertical.

MileHigh

Do you think an electric field arises as if by magic? The gross electric field comes from having a bunch of tiny, like charges packed together. In situations where there is a varying electric field, like that surrounding a Tesla Coil, the field alternates in polarity at the frequency of _charges oscillating in the tank circuit_, bunching up first in the capacitor and then in the coil.
In a wire, electrons do move, they do come in at one end and go out the other end, as the cathode ray tube proves by allowing one to actually visualize the electrons flowing. They don't generally have to move at the speed of the signal in the wire, because of the Newton's Balls phenomenon where pressure is transferred without gross movements, but in situations like the CRT, it should be obvious that what comes out one end, has to go in the other end.
In a battery, the chemistry does indeed produce an excess of electrons at one pole and a deficit at the other pole. You are describing an electric field and I am telling you where the bulk field comes from in voltage sources: the charges of individual unit charges all added together. And it is the pressure resulting from these charges pushing each other away that IS voltage.
Experience with static machines, where huge charges are built up on surfaces by tiny currents over time, will teach one just what voltage is. In my Dirod, which is hand-cranked, you can actually _feel_ the additional work you do against the EF gradient to push more charge into the reservoirs. This is voltage! In generators you have charges being moved in conductors by moving magnetic fields. The mechanical force is transferred to moving charges and increasing charge pressure as the charges -- the electrons in the conduction band gas if you like-- are swept up and pushed together against their individual repulsions caused by their individual, tiny, fields from the unit charges they carry. If you like, you can just focus on the aggregate field and say that the field is pushing the charges along. But it is doing it as I illustrate, by the fields of individual charges pushing each other in the wire.  After all, the end of the wire connected to the cathode of the CRT can be very very long if I want it to be, far away from any fields that are providing the voltage in the wire in the first place. The wire "shorts" the field and brings its _effects_  (voltage, charge pressure) to the cathode ... and it does it by field pushing on field, little chunks travelling with each individual charge.

Quote from: Qwert on October 09, 2014, 09:37:35 PM
MileHigh, I believe, your implication(s) on electrons behavior in DC (Direct Current) in solid conductor are scientifically supported. Can you show us a link or any reference on that matter?

Edit:

Oops! MH, you are supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_carrier)

Then we have a dilemma.

There is nothing in that reference that contradicts what I have been saying and in fact it provides support for the conduction band electron gas, the charge pressure concept of voltage and etc.

Quote from: MileHigh on October 09, 2014, 11:15:59 PM
Continued...

So here is a thought experiment:   You have two batteries, one is 12 volts, the other one is one million volts.   There is no load on either battery.

When you look at the positive terminals of either battery, does the million-volt battery have more densely packed electrons on it?   (we will ignore the parasitic capacitance between the two terminals that will cause extra charge to appear on the terminals because we are not talking about that aspect.)

So, in my opinion, ignoring the parasitic capacitive effects, you will not observe any difference between the open-circuit positive terminals of each battery.  Both of the positive terminals, being made of metal, will be electrically neutral.   However, the potential of the electrons on the million-volt battery will be much higher that that of the 12-volt battery.

You are both right and wrong. "Potential" is a word that was used for voltage, for a good reason. In a battery, the potential is produced by chemical action and exists as Potential: the electrons haven't yet been released from their molecules in order to migrate across the circuit to neutralise the positive ions at the other terminal. But consider a capacitor instead of a battery. Here the charge is not "potential" it is really there and in the 1 million volt cap the whole thing is electrically neutral of course but there are certainly a lot more electrons on the negative side than on the positive side. And if you take the same _capacitance_ of capacitor and only charge it to one volt, there will be less charge _separation_ in the overall electrically neutral capacitor.

Quote
This is pretty "hard core" and I know my limits and all that stuff so I could be wrong in certain aspects.  By in general sense I am pretty confident that I am right.

Almost all circuits are driven by a voltage source.  That means the electric field is king.  The electric field snakes its way through all of the conductors in a circuit.   Some parts of the circuit, and some wires in the circuit may be at very high potential.  In cases like this you have a very very weak electric field inside the high-potential wires.  At the same time, the relative potential of the overall wire itself can be very high.   So you have a very weak electric field at a very high potential.  That may sound contradictory but in fact it's not.

Where you can get a very high electric field is in a resistor.  In wires the electric field strength is very very low, but in resistors the electric field strength can be very high (when you have a large voltage drop).  Sitting on top of all of this is the potential of any point in the circuit with respect to ground.

So you have two concepts of potential going on at the same time.  The first is the concept of relative potential to ground, and the second concept is the local differential potential.  In a wire the local differential potential is almost always very low.

And driving the whole thing is the electric field snaking its way through the wires.   The electrons are just along for the ride as all of this happens.  They don't get more closely bunched up at high voltage potentials.  If all of the electrons in a place in a circuit are at low potential, or if all of the electrons in a place in a circuit are at high potential, there is no difference in local electron density.

MileHigh

Wrong again. It's been a while since you've reviewed your vector calculus, I guess.
Where do you think "potential" comes from, if not from packing electrons (unit charges) closely together by doing work against the electric field they produce? What actually makes the voltage increase on the terminal of a VDG machine as the belt-drive motor works harder and harder as the voltage goes up?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/diverg.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/diverg.html)

Quote from: MileHigh on October 10, 2014, 12:27:54 AM
You may be right that there is a chemical coating on the cathode that facilitates the liberation of the electrons.  I honestly don't know.  When I read what you say I am wondering if a substance can act as a sort of catalyst for the liberation of the electrons.  But to be clear, "facilitating" is definitely not being a source of electrons.

For testing tubes, the filament can simply burn out like a light bulb.  I am guessing that that happens less frequently then the other failure mode.  That mode being when the tube loses its partial vacuum.  If the tube leaks and air enters, that will block the transmission of the electrons because they need a rarefied partial vacuum medium.

There are probably other failure modes.  I am old enough to remember tube testers being at the local pharmacy!  lol

It's scary to think that soon there will be adults that never saw CRT-based TVs for sale at Big Box stores, and adults that never walked into a video club to rent a movie!

MileHigh

Cathodes, and filament-cathodes, are coated with a material that facilitates the emission of electrons. You can have cold-field emission if the voltage is high enough, you can have emission from hot surfaces that is greater than the cold-field emission for the same voltage, and you can use materials from which it is easy to knock off electrons, and then you have the best of both worlds. You can get electron emission in greater quantity and at lower temperatures if you use a hot, thoriated cathode material. But the electrons still have to be replaced, they do not deplete in the cathode, they just flow through it. Residual gases or exceeding the tube's ratings can cause premature failure of cathodes but any old radio nut will tell you that you get the longest life from a thermionic tube by leaving it on, 24-7.

Quote from: MileHigh on October 09, 2014, 11:34:23 PM
There is no such thing as a "chemical with a rich supply of electrons available."   The cathode is effectively two things at the sane time.  It is the secondary load of a transformer, that's how it heats up.  This is completely isolated from the main circuit which is the second component.  The main circuit pumps electrons through the cathode such that they end up striking the phosphor screen.  The main circuit is the source of the electrons.  The main circuit is not even "aware" that the cathode is also a load resistor for the secondary of a transformer.

The heat facilitates the liberation of the electrons, somewhat akin to heating water facilitates the more rapid evaporation of the water.

And you forgot to mention that the Earth ground, in one form or another, replenishes the electrons that escape from the circuit by missing the anodes and striking the phosphor, so the circuit itself doesn't become depleted of electrons. The Earth is an essentially infinite sink and source of charge (electrons, holes). Which is which is determined by the local voltage level.

@milehigh,


I meant a charged isolated conductor only.  So, your answer is 'YES'.

'A moving, charged isolated conductor produces  magnetic field'

1) In any purely mechanical system, work is 'force X distance'.  So, energy, which is total capacity you have, to do   work (either in faster
    rate or slowly) is conserved and total input energy equals the total output energy.

2) So, when you move a charged conductor applying mechanical force, its input and output energy is conserved as or used up as purely
     mechanical energy.    Then from where the charged conductor gets energy to produce magnetic  field which represents electrical energy?

3) Does it mean that magnetic field is created out of nothing? (I mean without input energy?)   
   
4) Does it also mean that moving charged conductor digs out energy from the vaccuum to create magnetic field?

5) Why should a moving charge produce magnetic field at any cost?   Either moving under the influence of electric potential or under
     mechanical force?

6) Does it mean that a magnetic field is absolutely necessary for a moving charge?

7) Does it also  mean that nature prefers creation of magnetic field more than conservation of energy?

Mostly it means that your assumptions are still screwed up.

There is only ONE field, the electromagnetic field. Which aspect of it you experience depends on relative motion. If you move along with a moving charge you cannot detect any magnetic field from it, only electric field. But if you are stationary and that same charge moves past you at the same velocity, you see a magnetic field around the path of motion.


Look,  no magnets and no perceptible magnetic field (except in the belt drive motor):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc

Yet the capacitor is charging up with the same kind of voltage that is produced by a generator using magnetic fields. There is only one kind of voltage, and that is charge pressure caused by increasing charge density... and since the electron, a point particle, is the carrier of the unit negative charge, the only way to increase charge density in conductors is to do work against all those little electric fields, forcing more electrons to occupy the same space.

@MH: Where does the voltage in a battery come from? Yes, it comes from an excess of electrons at one terminal and a deficit of them at the other terminal, and this is produced by the action of the imposed electric field from an external voltage source, on ions during charging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrochemical_potential

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 02:16:33 AM

Mostly it means that your assumptions are still screwed up.

Agreed.  I am tightly screwed to ground by a screw jack on my ass.  A charged conductor passes infront of me with terrific speed and I would see a magnetic field around it.  After moving through some distance the conductor stops due to some reason.  So, I will see an electric field around the conductor.

But when magnetic field becomes electric field, I would also see some energy  released by 'self induction' or mutual induction.  What happens to that energy?  Will it come to me and further tighten the screw jack on my ass?

If I am blind I would neither see a magnetic field nor electric field but would only feel screw jack getting tightened on my ass.

Input energy = 100% mechanical energy

Output energy = 100% mechanical energy  + Energy released by collapsing magnetic field (energy received from where?)

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 02:16:33 AM

Look,  no magnets and no perceptible magnetic field (except in the belt drive motor):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj5T0zRALKc

Yet the capacitor is charging up with the same kind of voltage that is produced by a generator using magnetic fields. There is only one kind of voltage, and that is charge pressure caused by increasing charge density... and since the electron, a point particle, is the carrier of the unit negative charge, the only way to increase charge density in conductors is to do work against all those little electric fields, forcing more electrons to occupy the same space.

I agree with all that.   But as you can see my question is different.   It is about a moving charged conductor producing a magnetic field (even
if it is an illusion) and releasing energy when field collapses.  This energy comes from where?   We are not doing any work on charges because the charges are also moving with the conductor as its integral part.

Quote from: Magluvin on October 09, 2014, 09:13:35 PM

off that topic, I had an idea to wind a copper wire around a plastic toroid, 4in dia, 1/2in thick, 1/2in deep.  1 layer. Then make a rotor with all magnets N pointing out. just used 2 mags in the test.  It was a slap together thing, a bit off balance in every way, but just tried.  When I applied current to the coil, sometimes the rotor turned CW, sometimes CCW.  The idea was to have the mags close to the inside part of the coil and have the N poles of the mags ride the field spin around those inner windings.  As in a DC motor without pole switching. I chose to use a non magnetic core so as not to have it absorb the field away from the mags.  But a core may help, havnt gotten there yet. Busy with life. Try to get to some experiments here n there. ;) Just throwing it out there. ;) ;D


Mags

Had an idea to build this a 'lil bit' differently.  Will draw it up later in 3D to show what im thinking before I build it.

Mags

@TinselKoala

Quote
In my Dirod, which is hand-cranked, you can actually _feel_ the additional
work you do against the EF gradient to push more charge into the reservoirs.
This is voltage!

Dirod you say?, you know it's funny how one simple word can explain so many things about a person and I built my first Dirod, a Van de Graaff and a Bennett doubler a decade or so ago. I still have A.D.Moores book on electrostatics in the nightstand next to my bed and I am pretty sure I learned more from that book and my simple experiments than most people learn in a lifetime concerning electricity. I'm glad you chimed in as the voice of reason because what I was reading prior was ridiculous in my opinion.
AC

TK:

So, in view of your postings and MH's postings, as well as others, am I to conclude that my circa 1980's electronics text books might have it wrong when they say that, in a circuit, the energy (electrons) flows from positive to the negative.  (Like flowing to ground, which I have always been told)  I have since read (In newer books) that even though the schematic symbol for a diode shows an arrow, the energy flows the opposite way in any circuit.  (From - to +) So, if I am designing a small circuit, or looking at a schematic, would it be better for me to trace the flow from the minus, through the circuit to the positive input?  This seems counter intuitive from what I (thought) I learned all these years playing around.

If I am building a JT type circuit,  I look at the positive end of the battery and trace the flow of "energy" to the resistor, to the base of the transistor...etc.  Does it really matter which way the energy flows?  (although I would really like to know for myself)  I mean, my circuits (most of them) work but, if those older books are indeed outdated, it would be good for me to know.  Is it possible that no one "really" knows?  Or, has something in research since the 80's changed this way of looking at a circuit?

I really do not mean to sound like an idiot here.  You know me and my skill level.  I build some cool things and can do some cool stuff, but other stuff is waaay over my head.  I am trying to fix this.

Thank you,

Bill

Quote from: allcanadian on October 10, 2014, 08:31:55 PM
@TinselKoalaDirod you say?, you know it's funny how one simple word can explain so many things about a person and I built my first Dirod, a Van de Graaff and a Bennett doubler a decade or so ago. I still have A.D.Moores book on electrostatics in the nightstand next to my bed and I am pretty sure I learned more from that book and my simple experiments than most people learn in a lifetime concerning electricity. I'm glad you chimed in as the voice of reason because what I was reading prior was ridiculous in my opinion.
AC

Well, thanks.  I'd love to see your Dirod, they are rare as hen's teeth. I think I've only seen videos of two or three others on YT.  Yes, AD Moore's book inspired my electrostatic explorations and I also got a lot from Richard Ford's "Homemade Lightning" book. I built my Dirod in 1999. Later on I got a lot of inspiration from the work of Oleg Jefimenko.

Here's my Dirod in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c)
And a little VDG machine and a calibrated ES voltmeter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E

So, some discussion questions for the audience: Is there current flowing in the above demonstration? If so, in which direction?
There are no magnets anywhere in the Dirod or the ppb oscillator or other demo devices shown. How does the system work? Is there a difference between the electricity in the spark at the end of the demos, and the electricity I might have gotten from a power supply or battery to charge up the capacitor bank? Where did the _voltage_ come from? Are the bead chain links charged, or not?

Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 10, 2014, 10:07:36 PM
TK:

So, in view of your postings and MH's postings, as well as others, am I to conclude that my circa 1980's electronics text books might have it wrong when they say that, in a circuit, the energy (electrons) flows from positive to the negative.  (Like flowing to ground, which I have always been told)  I have since read (In newer books) that even though the schematic symbol for a diode shows an arrow, the energy flows the opposite way in any circuit.  (From - to +) So, if I am designing a small circuit, or looking at a schematic, would it be better for me to trace the flow from the minus, through the circuit to the positive input?  This seems counter intuitive from what I (thought) I learned all these years playing around.

If I am building a JT type circuit,  I look at the positive end of the battery and trace the flow of "energy" to the resistor, to the base of the transistor...etc.  Does it really matter which way the energy flows?  (although I would really like to know for myself)  I mean, my circuits (most of them) work but, if those older books are indeed outdated, it would be good for me to know.  Is it possible that no one "really" knows?  Or, has something in research since the 80's changed this way of looking at a circuit?

I really do not mean to sound like an idiot here.  You know me and my skill level.  I build some cool things and can do some cool stuff, but other stuff is waaay over my head.  I am trying to fix this.

Thank you,

Bill

Long before anyone actually discovered the electron and understood that it carried a unit charge and so forth, Benjamin Franklin, who was a great scientist and experimenter, decided that electricity was a kind of fluid that had two characters that he called "negative" and "positive". He made a W.A.G. and assigned the label "negative" to the polarity (of chemical batteries and electrostatic charges) that we now know is actually the source of electrons. And we know that the "flowing" electrons move in the direction from Franklin's "negative" polarity towards the "positive" polarity in actuality and it is this motion of charge that transfers the energy, that is does the work, in an electrical circuit.

But most of the math was worked out before the actual discovery of the electron itself and the realization that it was the fundamental charge carrier in circuits! And the electron is stuck with the label "negative" because of Franklin's wild-ass guess.

So your textbooks are right: the formulae and all the rest of electrical engineering math is stuck with Franklin's conventional flow of "electricity" fluid from Positive to Negative. The Anode is the arrow -> pointing from the more positive polarity to the more negative (or less positive, same thing). It's a convention, that's all, like driving on the left side of the road in the UK.

And the present understanding is also right: the actual flow of charge goes from Negative to Positive. But so what? The math is based on the other side of the convention, they are just words. There is nothing inherently "negative" or "positive" about electrons, protons and charge! Franklin could just as well have called them Male and Female, as he felt that there were indeed two fluids involved in his concept of electricity.

So when you do your circuit analysis, choose components, calculate power, etc etc, you use the convention of electricity flowing from positive to negative polarity. But if you want to understand what is happening on a deeper level, a quantum level if you will, then you must leave convention where it belongs and start looking at the underlying phenomena, including electrons as charge carriers travelling in the opposite direction to the conventional Anode arrows, etc.

TK:

Thank you for that great answer.  I really do appreciate that more than you know.  I am attempting to fill in the gaps in my knowledge and, the more I learn, the more gaps I find that I have.

Thanks again,

Bill

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 01:24:39 AM
Well, thanks.  I'd love to see your Dirod, they are rare as hen's teeth. I think I've only seen videos of two or three others on YT.  Yes, AD Moore's book inspired my electrostatic explorations and I also got a lot from Richard Ford's "Homemade Lightning" book. I built my Dirod in 1999. Later on I got a lot of inspiration from the work of Oleg Jefimenko.

Here's my Dirod in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxEpSX2Hd54)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqf3bUL4YqE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpemKuf6X_c)
And a little VDG machine and a calibrated ES voltmeter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eogpGHFgV6E)

So, some discussion questions for the audience: Is there current flowing in the above demonstration? If so, in which direction?
There are no magnets anywhere in the Dirod or the ppb oscillator or other demo devices shown. How does the system work? Is there a difference between the electricity in the spark at the end of the demos, and the electricity I might have gotten from a power supply or battery to charge up the capacitor bank? Where did the _voltage_ come from? Are the bead chain links charged, or not?

Well this is electrostatic induction. So in the ball we have movement of charges or not.
The ball is an AC current.

Quote from: Magluvin on October 09, 2014, 09:13:35 PM
A possible secondary experiment would be to apply enough current to heat the iron wire pretty good, then freeze the wire with freeze spray while removing the current.  ;D

off that topic, I had an idea to wind a copper wire around a plastic toroid, 4in dia, 1/2in thick, 1/2in deep.  1 layer. Then make a rotor with all magnets N pointing out. just used 2 mags in the test.  It was a slap together thing, a bit off balance in every way, but just tried. When I applied current to the coil, sometimes the rotor turned CW, sometimes CCW.  The idea was to have the mags close to the inside part of the coil and have the N poles of the mags ride the field spin around those inner windings.  As in a DC motor without pole switching. I chose to use a non magnetic core so as not to have it absorb the field away from the mags.  But a core may help, havnt gotten there yet. Busy with life. Try to get to some experiments here n there. ;) Just throwing it out there. ;) ;D


Mags

Hey Mags
Was it direct current or were you pulsing the coil.

Iv been thinking about the way a motor works
A current carrying wire is pushed out of the magnetic field, if the current runs one way its expelled in one direction, change direction of the current and the wire is expelled in the other direction.

I wonder if a pancake coil is sandwiched between two toroid speaker magnets and a current is pulsed into the center of the coil will the magnet add energy to the electrons as they are pushed out, and will there be any bemf.

Instead of trying to collect more electrons from the ambient can we add energy to the electrons we already have.
Its just something Iv been wanting to try.

electron acceleration?
So many idea's so little time.
I know what you mean by work and family, I need to spend more time on both.

dave

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 01:24:39 AM
Here's my Dirod in action

Awesome build

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 10, 2014, 01:54:09 AM
You can have cold-field emission if the voltage is high enough, you can have emission from hot surfaces that is greater than the cold-field emission for the same voltage, and you can use materials from which it is easy to knock off electrons, and then you have the best of both worlds. You can get electron emission in greater quantity and at lower temperatures if you use a hot, thoriated cathode material.

And so it is in the magnetron of the simple microwave oven.

So we have a wire conected across a battery. What is the polarity of the magnetic field produced around the wire ?. Dose it change from one end to the other-from positive side of the battery to the negative side. Or do we have a monopole field?. If a magnetic field is built around the wire,what is going on inside the battery as far as a magnetic field is concerned?. Would we have one field being formed around the outer steel casing of the battery(normally the negative),and the opposite field polarity on the carbon inner rod of the battery(normally the positive)?.

Quote from: bboj on October 11, 2014, 04:12:34 AM

Well this is electrostatic induction. So in the ball we have movement of charges or not.
The ball is an AC current.

But the Dirod generator is strictly a DC machine. One side is positively charged, the other side negatively charged. How can there be an AC current coming from a DC generator?

(This is a discussion question, not a position statement!)

Quote from: tinman on October 11, 2014, 09:25:41 AM
So we have a wire conected across a battery. What is the polarity of the magnetic field produced around the wire ?. Dose it change from one end to the other-from positive side of the battery to the negative side. Or do we have a monopole field?. If a magnetic field is built around the wire,what is going on inside the battery as far as a magnetic field is concerned?. Would we have one field being formed around the outer steel casing of the battery(normally the negative),and the opposite field polarity on the carbon inner rod of the battery(normally the positive)?.

The magnetic field produced by a current-carrying wire is _around_ the wire and you can visualize it as circular loops of field. Polarity is "direction" of the loops, there aren't really "N" and "S" poles to a circular field line or the field itself. The conventional direction of electricity flow is from the positive pole of the source to the negative pole. So if you point your right thumb in this direction along the wire and curl your fingers around the wire, the fingers will be describing the "direction" of the magnetic field around the wire. And you can demonstrate this with a magnetic compass. Believe it or not, for at least 20 years after electricity was being demonstrated in the laboratory, people did not understand that there was a magnetic field associated with current-carrying wires. The story is that it was actually discovered by accident during a classroom demonstration intended to prove that there was NO field around the wire, by Oersted in 1820.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_%C3%98rsted#Electromagnetism
Inside the battery, there is a lot of electrochemistry happening and there isn't really a large coherent region where electron current flows. If you had small enough and sensitive enough instruments you could find net magnetic fields inside batteries, but you can demonstrate for yourself that batteries and ordinary magnetic fields don't interact much, by bringing a strong magnet near to a battery that is powering something.

"Dose it change from one end to the other-from positive side of the battery to the negative side. Or do we have a monopole field?" Neither one. The field is constant all along the wire and there is no such thing as a "monopole" magnetic field. You can arrange magnets, as in Halbach arrays, so that you only _see_ one polarity outside the bulk structure, but you can be assured that every field line emitted by the thing is in fact a closed loop that has no terminations. DivB=0.

Now it should be plain that if you have a field that is like onion skin shells around the straight wire, if you coil the wire into a solenoidal coil, the "shells" reinforce and add, and you now get a structure that makes "poles", where one end of the solenoid has a lot of field line "directions" coming out, and the other  end has field line "directions" that go in, and they loop completely through and around the whole solenoid. Again, the in and out are conventions, nothing is really flowing along the "lines of flux" of a magnetic field, unless you put it there.

Quote from: Dave45 on October 11, 2014, 07:31:24 AM
Awesome build

Thanks, I am especially proud of this unit. Unfortunately it is in limbo, in storage in Canada along with a bunch of other really neat stuff that I'll probably never see again.

    Does induction involve conversion of the kinetic energy of the conductor free electrons from random motion to orderly motion? 

@TK

QuoteSo your textbooks are right: the formulae and all the rest of electrical
engineering math is stuck with Franklin's conventional flow of "electricity"
fluid from Positive to Negative. The Anode is the arrow -> pointing from the
more positive polarity to the more negative (or less positive, same thing). It's
a convention, that's all, like driving on the left side of the road in the
UK.

And the present understanding is also right: the actual flow of
charge goes from Negative to Positive. But so what? The math is based on the
other side of the convention, they are just words. There is nothing inherently
"negative" or "positive" about electrons, protons and charge! Franklin could
just as well have called them Male and Female, as he felt that there were indeed
two fluids involved in his concept of electricity.

I started using electron flow notation exclusively about 15 years ago when my primary area of research was electrostatics, personally I find it easier.
A simple analogy may be to see conductors as a basket of apples and oranges, if there an equal number of apples and oranges the charge is neutral. If there are more apples then the basket has an apple charge and if the there are less apples then there must be more oranges and the basket has an orange charge. When we move the apples to and from the basket then this motion of the apples is called an electric current.
Apples are electrons oranges protons.
We could also say if the apples are moving it is an electric current of apples and if the oranges are moving so must the basket or conductor of apples.
We say this because the protons are bound to electrons in the material of the conductor and must move with it. On the other hand the free electrons may move within the material producing a charge separation in objects or produce a net charge if an alternative path is present and this motion is called an electric current.
It is funny that something so simple could cause so much confusion which is why I believe the basics are so important. I think understanding the basics may lead to more questions and these questions answers.
As such we could say most of our technology is nothing more than a basket of fruit, apples and oranges, we pump out apples into a loop or circuit only to have the same apples return to the same basket. Apples and oranges are not Energy, the pumping action which caused the apples to move is work and the motion of the apples Energy. Now if we could just find some apples which refused to stop moving our troubles would be over, lol.
I think it's kind of neat how a small change in context can produce a large change in our perception of things and how they work.

AC

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 11:16:18 AM

but you can be assured that every field line emitted by the thing is in fact a closed loop that has no terminations. DivB=0.

Somewhere I had read that  magnetic field or field lines around a magnet extends upto infinity  but  you will feel  magnetic force only upto some distance from poles because field lines will be concentrated near the poles and will diverge out at farther distances.

So,  if you keep some sort of magnetic field or field line 'sucker'  inside the magnet and go on sucking field lines towards magnet,  will the strength of field near the poles become infinity?  Because field lines come closer and closer rising the density of flux near the poles?

Situation is somewhat like a star go on sucking its mass towards centre and gets converted into a black hole with terrific Gravitational field strength around it.

Just a crazy question.    Please don't take it seriousley.

Quote from: allcanadian on October 11, 2014, 12:35:11 PM
@TKI started using electron flow notation exclusively about 15 years ago when my primary area of research was electrostatics, personally I find it easier.
A simple analogy may be to see conductors as a basket of apples and oranges, if there an equal number of apples and oranges the charge is neutral. If there are more apples then the basket has an apple charge and if the there are less apples then there must be more oranges and the basket has an orange charge. When we move the apples to and from the basket then this motion of the apples is called an electric current.
Apples are electrons oranges protons.
We could also say if the apples are moving it is an electric current of apples and if the oranges are moving so must the basket or conductor of apples.
We say this because the protons are bound to electrons in the material of the conductor and must move with it. On the other hand the free electrons may move within the material producing a charge separation in objects or produce a net charge if an alternative path is present and this motion is called an electric current.
It is funny that something so simple could cause so much confusion which is why I believe the basics are so important. I think understanding the basics may lead to more questions and these questions answers.
As such we could say most of our technology is nothing more than a basket of fruit, apples and oranges, we pump out apples into a loop or circuit only to have the same apples return to the same basket. Apples and oranges are not Energy, the pumping action which caused the apples to move is work and the motion of the apples Energy. Now if we could just find some apples which refused to stop moving our troubles would be over, lol.
I think it's kind of neat how a small change in context can produce a large change in our perception of things and how they work.

AC

This is all clear to me. But the question at the beggining of the thread was if  move apples int the conductor how come that the resulting magnetic field around this same conductor is static?

Quote from: Dave45 on October 11, 2014, 07:24:06 AM
Hey Mags
Was it direct current or were you pulsing the coil.

Iv been thinking about the way a motor works
A current carrying wire is pushed out of the magnetic field, if the current runs one way its expelled in one direction, change direction of the current and the wire is expelled in the other direction.

I wonder if a pancake coil is sandwiched between two toroid speaker magnets and a current is pulsed into the center of the coil will the magnet add energy to the electrons as they are pushed out, and will there be any bemf.

Instead of trying to collect more electrons from the ambient can we add energy to the electrons we already have.
Its just something Iv been wanting to try.

electron acceleration?
So many idea's so little time.
I know what you mean by work and family, I need to spend more time on both.

dave

Hey Dave

Ever seen these mono polar motors with the disk mag magnetized to the AA battery and the wire loop that spins around it?  Well this should be similar except im not using 1 wire as they are, but have a rotor with the say N poles of multiple mags very close to the inside windings of a toroid coil. Like Faraday, with current flowing in all the wires the same direction, the rotor should spin with DC applied to the coil.

The other way of doing it would be to have say 2 copper rings, a top and bottom with many thin wires attached from the bottom ring to the top ring, probably as many as possible so there is no spacing between thin wires, then apply dc or pulsing to the top and bottom rings so all the thin wires conduct current in the same direction. This should make the rotor move, all mags with same pole outward.  The first one like I said was simple rough slap together, nowhere near perfect. But the rotor would pop into acceleration just tapping the coil ends with voltage.  I dont know why it would go in either direction at times. could have been spacing of the toroid windings. Inside the say air core toroid, when dc current is applied, the field is oriented in one direction internally, and on the outside of the windings the field is oriented in the opposite direction. So using the toroid model may pose issues as to how it affects the facing field of the magnets once current is applied, due to the field of the mag is inside an outside of the toroid winding before current is applied. But my 2 rings with thin wires vertical from the bottom and top ring eliminates some of the toroidal core area concentration. 

Im planning the build at my shop as we speak. Going with the top and bottom ring with thin wires. Thought of just a short copper tube, 2in is what I have, but I believe there would be too much eddy currents vs thin vertical wires in parallel.  ;)    Plus, in the tube,  if we attach input wires to the top and bottom of the copper tube, would currents be equal and in the same straight up or down direction in all portions of the tube. 

hope to complete today.

Mags

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 11:18:24 AM
Thanks, I am especially proud of this unit. Unfortunately it is in limbo, in storage in Canada along with a bunch of other really neat stuff that I'll probably never see again.

This is not good TK-can you not get it all shiped down to you?. Would be awsome to see all your old gear up and running again.

Quote from: bboj on October 11, 2014, 04:11:07 PM

This is all clear to me. But the question at the beggining of the thread was if  move apples int the conductor how come that the resulting magnetic field around this same conductor is static?

This has been answered several times. Is there some problem with your understanding of the answer you have already been given?

Knowns, unknowns, and beyond.

Quote from: Magluvin on October 11, 2014, 04:19:00 PM
Hey Dave

Ever seen these mono polar motors with the disk mag magnetized to the AA battery and the wire loop that spins around it?  Well this should be similar except im not using 1 wire as they are, but have a rotor with the say N poles of multiple mags very close to the inside windings of a toroid coil. Like Faraday, with current flowing in all the wires the same direction, the rotor should spin with DC applied to the coil.

The other way of doing it would be to have say 2 copper rings, a top and bottom with many thin wires attached from the bottom ring to the top ring, probably as many as possible so there is no spacing between thin wires, then apply dc or pulsing to the top and bottom rings so all the thin wires conduct current in the same direction. This should make the rotor move, all mags with same pole outward.  The first one like I said was simple rough slap together, nowhere near perfect. But the rotor would pop into acceleration just tapping the coil ends with voltage.  I dont know why it would go in either direction at times. could have been spacing of the toroid windings. Inside the say air core toroid, when dc current is applied, the field is oriented in one direction internally, and on the outside of the windings the field is oriented in the opposite direction. So using the toroid model may pose issues as to how it affects the facing field of the magnets once current is applied, due to the field of the mag is inside an outside of the toroid winding before current is applied. But my 2 rings with thin wires vertical from the bottom and top ring eliminates some of the toroidal core area concentration. 

Im planning the build at my shop as we speak. Going with the top and bottom ring with thin wires. Thought of just a short copper tube, 2in is what I have, but I believe there would be too much eddy currents vs thin vertical wires in parallel.  ;)    Plus, in the tube,  if we attach input wires to the top and bottom of the copper tube, would currents be equal and in the same straight up or down direction in all portions of the tube. 

hope to complete today.

Mags

If I am understanding your description properly, I made a device something like that back in 2000 sometime. It was the first AC homopolar generator I encountered. Not super efficient but if you spun it you could clearly see the alternating current it generated.

In your reversible one, are you sure you weren't seeing the Marinov Ball Bearing Motor effect in your bearings and shafts, instead of the homopolar dynamo effect in the disc?

Quote from: tinman on October 11, 2014, 08:58:53 PM
This is not good TK-can you not get it all shiped down to you?. Would be awsome to see all your old gear up and running again.

Yes, it is not good. Please check your PMs!

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 09:23:36 PM
If I am understanding your description properly, I made a device something like that back in 2000 sometime. It was the first AC homopolar generator I encountered. Not super efficient but if you spun it you could clearly see the alternating current it generated.

In your reversible one, are you sure you weren't seeing the Marinov Ball Bearing Motor effect in your bearings and shafts, instead of the homopolar dynamo effect in the disc?

Hey T

While looking through all my stuff(good junk ;D ) to build the dual ring, thin wire design, I found the toroid coil and rotor I messed with back then.  The toroid is wound on a pvc board ring, about 4in in dia 1/2in thick and 1/2in deep I wound it tight with 26awg 1 layer all the way around.  The rotor was not as good as I have shown in previous projects, a lil off center. Rotor has 4 1/4in x 1/8in neo disks. Im going to fix that setup to see more what was happening and show.

So the mags of the rotor are all N out, or south, but all the same. Ill have to check if N, but I usually tend to favor N in these cases just to do so. The rotor is mounted inside the toroid so mags are all facing the inside of the coil as it spins.  I imagined that the rotor would spin when dc was applied to the coil. But sometimes the rotor would just jerk into motion, one direction or the other when the source dc was first applied. but no constant spin. I got sidetracked soon and went to another seemingly more important project. 

So all this talk here reminded me of it. So Im putting it back on the table.  The 2 copper rings with thin wires soldered from the top ring to the bottom would be to simulate the inner side of the toroid windings without the complete wraparound of the toroid, so all the wires from top ring to bottom ring have current in the same direction, down or up.  In order for it to be a dc gen, I would say that mags would have to be all the way around the rotor as to affect all the vertical wires equally, or close to equally, otherwise the wires not induced by the mags would dissipate the currents generated output due to all wires in parallel connected to the top and bottom rings.

Sort of if instead of 1 loop of wire from top to bottom of a AA battery with a magnet stuck to the bottom of the battery, we encompass the whole battery/mag combo with many wires. Also, instead of the magnet at the bottom(or top) of the AA battery as we have seen many times, we get the magnet(rotor mags) close to the surface of the spinning wire(my case spinning rotor), instead of working the magnet at a distance as shown in these simple 1 wire loop motors.

Hope that makes sense till I get it together. Working on it tomorrow.

Mags

@Mags... ok, I see. Yes, it makes sense. And I have a new little homopolar motor that I'll be showing in a little while myself, nothing new but perhaps a little different than what is normally shown.

Here's something for you to try: But you have to use a saturable-cored toroid for this. Instead of having the rotor and toroid in the same plane, mount the axle of the rotor along a diameter of the toroid, so that they are at right angles. Then you will have the rotor magnets "cogging" at the closest approach to the toroid... and then if you pulse the toroid, it will saturate the core and reduce the rotor magnet attraction for as long as the pulse is on. You can turn this effect into a motor drive. It's the basis of the Steorn Orbo, actually, what I call a CEPM, core effect pulse motor, a very interesting critter, it operates not on repulsion or attraction, but by reducing attraction as the magnet moves away from the "cogging" position.
Good luck, I will be very interested in what you come up with. I'd love to follow along on my own but I can't maintain the necessary tolerances with my present restricted toolkit.

I thought I would throw this out to everyone here for consideration.
Now at the beginning of this thread poynt99 suggested that a magnet had no transition point near the field center. I would agree with the notion that a magnet may have an aggregate polarity internally relating to magnetic domains however I would disagree that the external field reflects this line of thought and what is depicted in every textbook.


I found the image below a few years ago at this site: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/apr/08/new-probe-measures-magnetic-fields-inside-solids (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/apr/08/new-probe-measures-magnetic-fields-inside-solids).


I should also state that I had mapped the magnetic fields of many magnet shapes using an Arduino/labview interface and a purpose built Hall Effect Array many years ago. The image below peaked my curiosity because my hall effect mapping was almost identical to the image I have illegally copied or not found below but that is neither here nor there.


Now you know I just have to ask the question?, which is why most everything I know disagree's with Poynt99's thought's concerning the magnetic field. I'm not pointing fingers or saying anyone is right or wrong here... persay. I'm just saying I find it fascinating that two intelligent and well educated people could come to such different conclusions.


I will let everyone here decide which is obviously a bad choice and I hope Poynt99 chimes in because I believe we all want the same thing despite our differences in opinion. We all want the truth and my truth would seem to be very different than the common consensus. So yes poynt99, you started this thread let's get it on and see where it leads us.


AC

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 11:05:57 PM
@Mags... ok, I see. Yes, it makes sense. And I have a new little homopolar motor that I'll be showing in a little while myself, nothing new but perhaps a little different than what is normally shown.

Here's something for you to try: But you have to use a saturable-cored toroid for this. Instead of having the rotor and toroid in the same plane, mount the axle of the rotor along a diameter of the toroid, so that they are at right angles. Then you will have the rotor magnets "cogging" at the closest approach to the toroid... and then if you pulse the toroid, it will saturate the core and reduce the rotor magnet attraction for as long as the pulse is on. You can turn this effect into a motor drive. It's the basis of the Steorn Orbo, actually, what I call a CEPM, core effect pulse motor, a very interesting critter, it operates not on repulsion or attraction, but by reducing attraction as the magnet moves away from the "cogging" position.
Good luck, I will be very interested in what you come up with. I'd love to follow along on my own but I can't maintain the necessary tolerances with my present restricted toolkit.

Thanks T.   Yes I am familiar with the orbo principle.  ;)   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrtGzxOKpwQ&list=UUjjcpZL8tkpn4WGkU2y_lPQ

And, maybe you hadnt seen the Orbonbon solid state orbo that I created about 2 months before Naudin had shown his solid state version....  There was a thread back then discussing solidstate orbo possibilities, and this is what I had come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ljx1py-BUs&list=UUjjcpZL8tkpn4WGkU2y_lPQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYXU_ClBrIA&list=UUjjcpZL8tkpn4WGkU2y_lPQ

It was about the size of a bonbon.  ;)   I gave it a name as you had the Orbette.  ;D

Back to the subject.

What Im thinking is just like Faraday showing 1 wire wants to move when current is applied to it while it is perpendicular to the pole of a magnet, im trying to have a succession of wires next to each other with current flowing in all of them in the same direction but the magnet moves instead. Like I said earlier, the toroid coil may have caused issues with continuous spin due to the concentration of field within the core(plastic, air, etc) vs the field outside the winding in the opposing direction.  I had many thoughts before fiddling, as to the possibility that the field within the toroids core could possibly pull the magnet around, or the field outside the winding would pul the rotor the other way. Get it? :)   But I got strange results. So we will see those results when I straighten out the rotor balance issue and make a vid of that. Then Ill make the vertical wires setup after.  With all the many vertical wires in parallel around the rotor. Ill try current limiting for dc input and pulsing input like used in a very low ohm switching supply primary to eliminate the current limiting.

Im interested to see what you have come up with here also. ;) ;D

Mags

Quote from: allcanadian on October 11, 2014, 11:34:09 PM
I thought I would throw this out to everyone here for consideration.
Now at the beginning of this thread poynt99 suggested that a magnet had no transition point near the field center. I would agree with the notion that a magnet may have an aggregate polarity internally relating to magnetic domains however I would disagree that the external field reflects this line of thought and what is depicted in every textbook.


I found the image below a few years ago at this site: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/apr/08/new-probe-measures-magnetic-fields-inside-solids (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/apr/08/new-probe-measures-magnetic-fields-inside-solids).


I should also state that I had mapped the magnetic fields of many magnet shapes using an Arduino/labview interface and a purpose built Hall Effect Array many years ago. The image below peaked my curiosity because my hall effect mapping was almost identical to the image I have illegally copied or not found below but that is neither here nor there.


Now you know I just have to ask the question?, which is why most everything I know disagree's with Poynt99's thought's concerning the magnetic field. I'm not pointing fingers or saying anyone is right or wrong here... persay. I'm just saying I find it fascinating that two intelligent and well educated people could come to such different conclusions.


I will let everyone here decide which is obviously a bad choice and I hope Poynt99 chimes in because I believe we all want the same thing despite our differences in opinion. We all want the truth and my truth would seem to be very different than the common consensus. So yes poynt99, you started this thread let's get it on and see where it leads us.


AC

Interesting. ;)   lets say there were lines of force just for example. Also for example sake, N and S have a flow direction, from N(outside the magnet) to south. So in the pic you have shown, the field line exits the N and enters the S.

I can imagine that a N out field line may not just be attracted to only the S pole, but can loop back toward any part of the side of the magnet as if it were a bunch of little magnets(domains) in a row or  train of little magnets. Especially the N field lines exiting the N pole close to the outer ends of the face of the N pole, and the lines from the center of the pole possibly go out the furthest and end up reaching to the S pole side of the mag. Like if we break or cut the magnet in half, each will have the same magnetic orientation as the original. So your pic makes perfect sense to me as compared to just the N field line turning all the way back to just the S pole. 

As with a coil, there just might be the same circumstances. Not sure.

Mags

check your pm, personal messages

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 11, 2014, 11:16:18 AM
The magnetic field produced by a current-carrying wire is _around_ the wire and you can visualize it as circular loops of field. Polarity is "direction" of the loops, there aren't really "N" and "S" poles to a circular field line or the field itself. The conventional direction of electricity flow is from the positive pole of the source to the negative pole. So if you point your right thumb in this direction along the wire and curl your fingers around the wire, the fingers will be describing the "direction" of the magnetic field around the wire. And you can demonstrate this with a magnetic compass. Believe it or not, for at least 20 years after electricity was being demonstrated in the laboratory, people did not understand that there was a magnetic field associated with current-carrying wires. The story is that it was actually discovered by accident during a classroom demonstration intended to prove that there was NO field around the wire, by Oersted in 1820.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_%C3%98rsted#Electromagnetism
Inside the battery, there is a lot of electrochemistry happening and there isn't really a large coherent region where electron current flows. If you had small enough and sensitive enough instruments you could find net magnetic fields inside batteries, but you can demonstrate for yourself that batteries and ordinary magnetic fields don't interact much, by bringing a strong magnet near to a battery that is powering something.

"Dose it change from one end to the other-from positive side of the battery to the negative side. Or do we have a monopole field?" Neither one. The field is constant all along the wire and there is no such thing as a "monopole" magnetic field. You can arrange magnets, as in Halbach arrays, so that you only _see_ one polarity outside the bulk structure, but you can be assured that every field line emitted by the thing is in fact a closed loop that has no terminations. DivB=0.

Now it should be plain that if you have a field that is like onion skin shells around the straight wire, if you coil the wire into a solenoidal coil, the "shells" reinforce and add, and you now get a structure that makes "poles", where one end of the solenoid has a lot of field line "directions" coming out, and the other  end has field line "directions" that go in, and they loop completely through and around the whole solenoid. Again, the in and out are conventions, nothing is really flowing along the "lines of flux" of a magnetic field, unless you put it there.

Tink (this is simply a convenient way for me to use less keystrokes to refer to you, if you are in the least offended I will gladly do something else); you are doing OK till you get to the last sentence.

QuoteAgain, the in and out are conventions, nothing is really flowing along the "lines of flux" of a magnetic field, unless you put it there.

I explain. Using the lines of flux, or, lines of force, as our mutually agreeable arbitrary model, we do need to visualize something as flowing on the lines. Momentum. The direction of the lines of force is a reliable indicator of the way in which momentum is transferred between one magnetic body and the other body which is being influenced. The imagining of an in and out flow of momentum along field lines is a necessary consequence of the use of "field lines" as an arbitrary visualization aid.


CANGAS 88*

*Hey look at me, I'm like the first rock n roll song Rocket 88.

Can you provide some reference for this idea of momentum flowing along magnetic field lines?


Anyhow, here's the small homopolar motor I promised. What is making it turn? What is being pushed against, and how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 06, 2014, 04:54:26 AM
Argh. Charge, motion, field: one thing. One.

What is moving? Charge. What is the smallest chunk of charge? The Unit Charge. Where are these charge chunks? The Negative one is carried by and is inseparable from the electron. The positive one is carried by the proton, and also the positron (the electron's antiparticle). Normally we never actually see those positive charge carrying particles because the proton is buried deep within the nucleus of atoms and the positron is only made in energetic reactions and doesn't stick around very long. So the positive charges we see, like on the top of a positive Van De Graaff machine, are actually "holes"... deficiencies in electrons, places where electrons should be to make everything neutral, but for some reason they aren't there.
OK, now in wires carrying current, you can think of the charge moving fast through the "electron gas" of conduction band electrons, like the momentum moves through a Newton's Balls system, or if it is easier you can think of the electrons themselves flowing along in the wire. Either way, the current (moving charge) is pushed along by the fact that at one end of the wire there is more negative charge than at the other. This of course also means that there is more _positive charge_ at the other end of the wire-- holes where electrons should be.
The reason metals don't flow and collapse from all this electron charge moving around is because there are a bloody _lot_ of electrons, a Coulomb is a huge number of them, and even with currents of kilo or megaAmperes we are still only moving a tiny fraction of the electrons in the wire.
Now, when you move a charge you get an associated magnetic field around it. The field has geometry and strength that is determined by the path and speed of the moving charge. You can think of it like the bow wave ahead of a moving boat. Each moving charge has its tiny "bow wave" of a magnetic field circling around the path of  motion. (But what acts as the "water" in this analogy? That's a very deep question.) But there are many many many charges moving in even the smallest currents. So if you were really tiny and could watch your wire, and a tiny single charge came by, being pushed from behind by MH's "field" or by charge pressure from the charges behind it (same thing) you would see a bump on your field detector as the charge came by. So a DC current--- a single moving charge -- generates a dynamic, changing field at your fixed location as the charge moves past. But there are many many many charges flowing in the tiniest real DC current, so you see what looks like a strong, static field at your measurement point, as the charges flow past so many and so fast your finest instrument can't tell them from a continuous flow of homogeneous fluid.

Now we do know why, or rather how, a boat makes a bow wave. You can't really move through the water without making one and the faster you go the bigger the wave. Charges make magnetic fields as they move relative to the observer. If the observer moves along with the charge... you don't see the magnetic field (because the field just describes how a thing will move and you are already moving that way) but you do see the electric field from the charge which isn't moving with respect to you. Now that duality of electric and magnetic fields, discriminated only by relative motion, is, to me, a grand mystery of the Universe. "Why" does that happen? Well, some people believe that that question can be answered in a meaningful way, and that's why they go out and build particle accelerators and learn complex mathematics. I just look around in awe, myself, and give thanks that things are the way they are. Maybe they could be different... but I doubt it.


eta: The electron's charge cannot be removed from it, but an electron isn't "just" a packet of the Unit Negative charge. It has mass and spin angular momentum as well. What is really weird is that it does not appear to have a "size"... it is considered a point particle, or a probability cloud.

I checked back.
I know what you mean. Thanks

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 02:26:34 AM
Can you provide some reference for this idea of momentum flowing along magnetic field lines?


Anyhow, here's the small homopolar motor I promised. What is making it turn? What is being pushed against, and how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s

Can I provide a reference? If I had a dime for every time I have seen an internet shyster raise this as his defense, his skirt to hide behind.....

Well, you see, actually , Yo hero Tesla did not have a reference to provide all the time, did he?

The best reference for momentum and field lines would be your own physics wisdom and understanding, but you have just been seen to drop the ball and cleverly try to switch the subject so subtlely that nobody has noticed it.

You have evaded the issue momentarily, but I am not lured by any kind of sly trick you might pull out of your cuff. I know a bit about homopolar motors, and it is almost certain that any gimmick you might have to show is one that I have already discovered in my studies.

I do not do Youtube thingys for several reasons. So I have not looked at your Youtube thingy. But, of course, I bow down to the unlimited truth that everything that can be seen on a sleezy Youtube clip MUST be the perfect truth, OK?


CANGAS 89

So that would be a "no" then. And now you are back to being the CANGAS we know and love. I was worried about you there for a moment. When you start to agree with me, I need to go back and check my work very carefully.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 02:26:34 AM
Can you provide some reference for this idea of momentum flowing along magnetic field lines?


Anyhow, here's the small homopolar motor I promised. What is making it turn? What is being pushed against, and how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s)

I think it pushes against the magnetic field induced in the brush.
The brush is not in contact all the time but is pulsing.

Quote from: Marsing on October 04, 2014, 06:13:40 AM
someone said in TA thread that magnetic field is move at ~60x speed of light, magnetic field is not static but i dont know he said that for PM or electromagnet (coil) or both. i can not recall his name.

Does it mean that massless entities can travel with a speed faster than light?   Even liquids and gases are  static when held in a container but individual molecules will be moving in all directions hitting the wall of container and we call it as 'pressure'.    Analogically is there anything like 'magnetic field pressure?'   

     Does a conductor moving through a uniform magnetic field develop voltage between the ends of the conductor?  In a unipolar generator you can spin the magnets along with the disk.  What I believe is happening is that  the magnetic field aligns the electrons.   This counteracts the coulomb force trying to disperse the electrons.   The electrons on the inner part of the disk experience less change of position than the electrons on the periphery.   This creates a negative charged pole on the inner parts of the disk.  As you move to the periphery of the disk the electrons are moving and residing in that space for less time.  Entropy takes over and electrons move from the higher state of order to the lower state of order.   I would like to build one of these with an inner ring and an outer ring seperated by an insulator to prove this.

Hi All,

Hi Sparks,

Here are some sources for what your describing. If a dielectric is spun between a charged capacitor plate the dielectric will become magnetic.

Henry Augustus Rowland, Rowland Effect (1887) - "...carried out a well-known research on the effect of an electrically charged body in motion, showing it give rise to a magnetic field."

reference: On The Electromagnetic Effect of Convection-Currents (1889)
https://archive.org/details/onelectromagneti00rowl

Wilhelm Roetgens Experiment (1888) - "...discovered in 1888 that a dielectric became magnetized when moving in a uniform electric field."

Paper: Electromagnetic Fields in Moving and Inhomogeneous Dielectrics, 2001

http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:9054/FULLTEXT01

Rowland-Vasilescu Karpen's Effect

"A modern reproduction of this experiment consists in connecting a disk of hard rubber or an old phonograph record to the shaft of an electric motor. The disk is electro-statically charged by rubbing it with a piece of woolen cloth. Then, it is set in rotation and a magnetic compass is approached close to it. The needle is deflected; the faster the rotation, the greater the deflection."

source pg8: http://www.pprime.fr/sites/default/files/pictures/pages-individuelles/D2/germain/EPJP2013.pdf

Now there is also the reverse of this which if a dielectric is spun between a uniform magnetic field a +/- charge is built on the disc (linear polarization).

references:
On the Electric Effect of Rotating a Magnetic Insulator in a Magnetic Field, 1913
https://archive.org/details/philtrans08602085

Reverse W.C. Roetgens Experiment: Electrodynamics, Academic Press, 1955

This leads to more questions though.

We have an electrostatic generator which has a high voltage (large E-field) but low current (limited B-field).

Then a homopolar generator with high current (large B-field) but low voltage (limited E-field).

Is there a missing "Electropolar" generator which allows the B and E field to be balanced?

Quote from: sparks on October 12, 2014, 01:13:36 PM
     Does a conductor moving through a uniform magnetic field develop voltage between the ends of the conductor?  In a unipolar generator you can spin the magnets along with the disk.  What I believe is happening is that  the magnetic field aligns the electrons.   This counteracts the coulomb force trying to disperse the electrons.   The electrons on the inner part of the disk experience less change of position than the electrons on the periphery.   This creates a negative charged pole on the inner parts of the disk.  As you move to the periphery of the disk the electrons are moving and residing in that space for less time.  Entropy takes over and electrons move from the higher state of order to the lower state of order.   I would like to build one of these with an inner ring and an outer ring seperated by an insulator to prove this.

Sparks:

You are posing an interesting question but you are not posing the question properly.  You are not taking into account the direction of of the magnetic field and the orientation and direction of the conductor.  When it comes to magnetic fields, everything has to take direction into account.  Note that this has already been mentioned several times on this thread.  The implications are as follows:  That means that you have to start at square one, and learn the basics before you can seriously discuss and experiment with magnetic fields.  I have to assume that many people read your posting had the same issue and it did not occur to them either.  Some of those people have probably been discussing magnetic fields and magnetic interactions for years.

This is an opportunity for some of you to "hit the reset button" and discard all of your mostly incorrect preconceptions, misconceptions,  and superstitions about magnetic fields.  You can reread this thread and spend a week or two hunting around online for basic and intermediate course material on magnetic fields and pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps and educate yourselves.  It's all there for free.  In my opinion this is the real way to do it.  When you are "spoon fed" information  by passively reading it simply doesn't stick.

MileHigh

Cangas:

I read your posting, and you repeated the point that I took issue with:

<<<
My post blatantly stated that FIELD LINES may or may not be real, and cannot be proved to either exist or to not exist per se.
>>>

But you have no evidence that they exist.  Anything "cannot be proved to either exist or not exist."  You are stating that anything is possible.  That is a hollow argument that goes nowhere.  It's like QEG fans saying that people have to "prove that the clainm does not work" when nobody has proved the claim does work.  The burden of proof is on Fix the Worldd and the QEG replicators to prove that it DOES work.  This is an old argument that has been around forever on the forums.  People have to prove that things actually work or that things actually exist.  Without that throught process, then things degenerate into a useless free-for-all.  Again, you can look at the example of the QEG.  Getting energy from the atmosphwere with an antenna, spark gaps, special separaate LC resonator, mechanical resonance with the core, 400 Hz, you must have good psychiological vibrations, it just goes on and on and it's just an exercise in futility and nonsense.

So I am NOT trying to be disagreeable, I am just making a firm point.

MileHigh

TK:

<<<
But that is in fact _exactly_ what is happening. Where do the electrons come from in the cathode ray? THEY COME OUT OF THE WIRE that connects the cathode to the rest of the circuit. They are pushed through the wire by voltage... that is, the electric field, that comes from _individual unit charges_ pushing each other apart. That is what voltage IS !!!
>>>

We are going to have to agree to disagree.  The electric field does _not_ come from individual unit charges pushing against each other when it comes from a source of induced EMF.  The individual electric charges are being pushed around by an external electric field.  The source of the energy is the EMF field and the charges are just the "agents" of the field.  Again, I am talking about electromotive force here.  The power grid is all EMF-based.

Here is a thought experiment:  You have a transformer secondary driving a load resistor.  There are three setups.  The first setup has the output of the secondary at 10 volts RMS driving a 10-ohm resistor.  The second setup has a secondary output of 100 VRMS driving a 100-ohm resistor.  The third setup has a secondary output of 1000 VRMS driving a 1000-ohm resistor.

So, the secondary wire and the resistor are neutral with no net charge.  In all three cases the current is one amp RMS.  Is there any difference in the electron density between the three setups because of charges pushing against each other?  The answer is no, if you put a bunch of high-end current probes at multiple places on each setup they would all give you exactly the same current waveform.  If you could measure the free electron density in the metal it would be the same in all three cases.  Electrons are not "pushing against each other to make the current flow."  Granted, in each setup there is a "sea" of valence electrons "jumping around."  The electrons in the high-voltage setup are not jumping around at any higher energy levels relative to their nuclei as compared to what is happening in the low-voltage setup.  But they are at a higher relative potential energy due to the fact that they are at the "tips" of the EMF field inside the long coil of wire.

Now of course the EMF is happening inside the transformer, so what about the interconnect wires?  The conductive wire by definition prevents the existence of an electric field inside the wire.  But the fact that there is a low finite resistance in the wires means that there is a low level of EMF inside the wires also.  It's all in "harmony" - the coil, the interconnect wires, and the load resistor - they all have the "correct" amount of EMF/electric field strength so that the current flow is the same everywhere.  In that sense the electrons are not pushing against each other.  The EMF is everywhere in the circuit at just the "correct" level so that all is the electrons flow at the same rate.

MileHigh

Another thought experiment:  What if the three coils are not connected to their load resistors?  One more time, let's ignore any electron flow due to parasitic capacitance.  Let's assume that you can observe the three coils in any manner without having to worry about the high voltage.  Let's assume that you are simply not looking at the voltage.  Will the three coils look any different from one another when you examine them in other ways?  I say that they won't, they will all look the same.

And just a reminder, all of this discussion is based on voltage induction, EMF.  I am not considering static electricity.  For static electricity, electron density does come into play.   I agree that in both cases you can measure voltage and the units are the same, it's the same voltage.  But there are fundamental differences with respect to the generation of EMF voltage and static-induced voltage.

Note that a capacitor bridges these two things.  An isolated capacitor has charged plates and that is an example of static electricity in action.  But when you connect a resistor across the capacitor, then I think that you can look at what happens in two ways that are mutually compatible.  You can say you have charges at high density pushing against each other and the charge repulsion will push the charges right through the resistor. Or you can say that you are back to EMF pushing current through the resistor because there is a strong electric field between the capacitor plates that also travels through the resistor.  When you connect a resistor across the capacitor plates, the electric field pushes the electrons through the resistor.

To summarize what I have come to understand from this discussion regarding an EF:  Voltage is a concentration of charge.  And since the negative unit charge carrier is the (free) electron, that means that Voltage is the result of a concentration of electrons.

Electrons are all the same (negative) charge and so want to repel each other.  So Voltage is very much like "pressure" as used in the mechanical analogy.  IE when you have a group of electrons that are freely spaced so as not to be too close to each other they do not repel each other very much and so there is very little or no Voltage.  But if those electrons are forced closer together their same charge fields are repelling each other.  The repulsive "force" between all of those electrons is Voltage.  And the "compressed" field of electrons are very much looking for a route to relieve the "pressure" that they are under.  And so if given the chance to return to an area of lower electron density (lower charge potential) they will go there.  And the closer they are together, the higher the Voltage, and the higher the Pressure, and therefor with more "gusto" they will go to that lower potential.

Can the word "gusto" above be replaced with the word "Energy?"

This explains to me how static electricity works.  For instance, on the collector of a VDG there is created a very large group of extra free electrons.  And so the surface of the collector also has a high Voltage.  But when you give that very large electron source on the collector a place to go where there is a lesser concentration of electrons (allow it to spark to somewhere, ie. ground out) all of those extra electrons will "jump" to that place of lower electron concentration under a high Voltage (pressure).  However, the group of electrons in the static electricity filed (on the collector of the VDG) have absolutely no backup electrons to flow as quickly and with so much Voltage (pressure) after that initial jump.  And so there is very little CURRENT (flow rate of the electrons) behind that discharge.

Okay?

M.

Quote from: MileHigh on October 12, 2014, 03:59:09 PM
TK:

<<<
But that is in fact _exactly_ what is happening. Where do the electrons come from in the cathode ray? THEY COME OUT OF THE WIRE that connects the cathode to the rest of the circuit. They are pushed through the wire by voltage... that is, the electric field, that comes from _individual unit charges_ pushing each other apart. That is what voltage IS !!!
>>>

I had come to post just a quick pic of the coil and rotor, as Im looking for the proper hardware to mount to a pvc board base. And I read the statement above first and it has me reiterating my earlier post.....

In my mind, if the electron is the source of magnetic field effects, thinking on the lines of if the deflection coils in a cathode ray tube can attract or deflect an electron, then likewise the electrons in the beam must be a source of magnetic field distortion and orientaion, not just magnetic like iron where either pole N or S only pulls on them, so they must be so called magnets themselves.  Now when we read the quote above and take heed that it is true, then I have to say that electrons have a positive and negative side to them.  But these are not magnets as we know. They must be sort of like a cross section slice of say fine copper wire and the wire has DC current flowing through it.  So if we visualize the slice, say slice is as long as the width of the wire, for visualization, the field spins around the electron, and one flat side of the slice is positive and the other negative at all times.

So when we apply a dc source to the wire ends, the electrons in a straight piece of wire flow in one direction and the fields around the wire are also in the same orientation, then theoretically, I must conclude that the moving electrons in the wire are oriented + side facing the - source wire end, and the - side of the moving electron is facing the  + source end of the wire, therefore the magnetic orientation of each electrically affected electron in the wire are all the same. And that magnetic orientation can be reversed by switching the dc source on the wire in opposite polarity. ;)

And it is possible that the electrons that dont move in the wire can also be finally moved from their strongholds by applying more voltage/charge at the source, disrupting their 'atomic' magnetic hold to their copper atom counterparts and that disruption in the electrons field could break it loose from the atom and become mobile, till it finds an empty seat with another atom that is missing and electron, if the source charge effects allow it to do so at the time.

So this is what I am adding to this thread as part of the discussion. To me, it doesnt sound far fetched really.   And if it is so, what experiments could possibly prove it?  Possibly measuring the field around a DC arc, showing that the electron passing through space has correct magnetic field orientation. But if you put a mag close to the side of the arc, do the N and S of the magnet both produce pull on the arc? ;)

And possibly knowing that electrons have a positive and negative side to them, can that help us in any way? 

Just some things to think about.

Mags

pic was huge, so deleted it.  Hadnt posted a pic from this camera in a while, forgot to shrink.

Mags

deleted pic. was stretching screen even though I shrunk it.  :'(   Maybe gotta take a new one due to remanence in the server from first posting it large.


Mags

I deleted the huge pic from the post on the last page, shrunk it, reposted above and the page is still stretched.
Ill try renaming it.

Mags

Quote from: Magluvin on October 12, 2014, 06:20:57 PM
I deleted the huge pic from the post on the last page, shrunk it, reposted above and the page is still stretched.
Ill try renaming it.

Mags

That is a good idea, also, dump your internet cache which helps me most of the time something like this happens.

Bill

Had some distractions, friends came over, and spent some time with the pic issue on my shop laptop.

Anyway, finished, but no testing tonight.

Mags

You always do good work
Is it a bifilar winding
keep us updated

TK:

I have been digesting the second half of this thread recently in small chunks.  I finally got around to looking at the links you provided and now I am unsure about the charge density and voltage issue.  Honestly when I start looking at all of the formulas with the "del" operator I know that I would have to do a lot of work to revert back and relearn stuff all the way back to all of those electromagnetics courses that I took way back when.  Since I have been in "lite" mode for quite some time there is no fire in the belly to do that anymore.  Like I stated already, I am aware of my technical limitations and just as importantly I am aware of my limited desire for investing work and time and engaging in stuff like this.

So I am going to defer to your expertize and throw in the towel on this thread.  The stuff that I stated in this first half of this thread is sound but I am not going to take it any further.  It's actually a "liberating experience" in a way.  I will give you an example from my hardware roots.  I remember agonizing over the stupid original PC card bus because I designed cards for that bus.  It eventually was called the "ISA" bus.  If I recall correctly there was this stupid signal on that bus called "AEN" (address enable.)  Some manufacturers of PCs did not drive that signal the way others did.  Part of the reason was that there was no "true" standard.  So you had to put an old-fashioned jumper on your card in case the customer was using NEC PCs because NEC (I think) were the "bad guys" that drove the AEN signal in a non-standard way and there were a lot of NEC PCs in the market at that time.  Agonizing, annoying crap.

Then I retired from all of that and moved on.  Then the PCI bus came out and it was a hell of a lot faster.  I could not give a rat's ass about the details for how the PCI bus worked.  I never even bothered to read much about the guts of how it worked and I absolutely never looked at the signal descriptions for that bus.  It was liberating, the only thing I had to know was that you plugged a card into a PCI bus slot and it was faster.  Engineers still had agonizing issues about plug-and-play (plug-and-pray) and making jumper-free cards that booted up in the PC without any addressing conflicts.  I couldn't care less.

So I made some good points in the beginning of the thread and will move on.  And I see once more, that more recently the thread is being "polluted" with myths and misconceptions and superstitions.  It's frustrating but who really cares in the "big picture" overall scheme of things.  What difference does it really make?

As they say in sales, "just walk away."

MileHigh

Quote from: Magluvin on October 13, 2014, 12:02:31 AM
Had some distractions, friends came over, and spent some time with the pic issue on my shop laptop.

Anyway, finished, but no testing tonight.

Mags

It's beautiful! But will it spin? I am predicting it will not, but if you can get it to, I will join you in  jumping for joy. After all, I also predicted it should be impossible to spin a sphere magnet on its true magnetic axis by applying external pulses from a coil ... and then I went ahead and did it anyway.

You could easily make it spin, though, by rotating the toroid 90 degrees out of the plane of the rotor, and then pulsing the coils at the right times to make an Orbo-effect PM. As we discussed earlier. It would really look cool even though it wouldn't be something entirely new.

Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2014, 02:15:47 PM
TK:

I have been digesting the second half of this thread recently in small chunks.  I finally got around to looking at the links you provided and now I am unsure about the charge density and voltage issue.  Honestly when I start looking at all of the formulas with the "del" operator I know that I would have to do a lot of work to revert back and relearn stuff all the way back to all of those electromagnetics courses that I took way back when.  Since I have been in "lite" mode for quite some time there is no fire in the belly to do that anymore.  Like I stated already, I am aware of my technical limitations and just as importantly I am aware of my limited desire for investing work and time and engaging in stuff like this.

So I am going to defer to your expertize and throw in the towel on this thread.  The stuff that I stated in this first half of this thread is sound but I am not going to take it any further.  It's actually a "liberating experience" in a way.  I will give you an example from my hardware roots.  I remember agonizing over the stupid original PC card bus because I designed cards for that bus.  It eventually was called the "ISA" bus.  If I recall correctly there was this stupid signal on that bus called "AEN" (address enable.)  Some manufacturers of PCs did not drive that signal the way others did.  Part of the reason was that there was no "true" standard.  So you had to put an old-fashioned jumper on your card in case the customer was using NEC PCs because NEC (I think) were the "bad guys" that drove the AEN signal in a non-standard way and there were a lot of NEC PCs in the market at that time.  Agonizing, annoying crap.

Then I retired from all of that and moved on.  Then the PCI bus came out and it was a hell of a lot faster.  I could not give a rat's ass about the details for how the PCI bus worked.  I never even bothered to read much about the guts of how it worked and I absolutely never looked at the signal descriptions for that bus.  It was liberating, the only thing I had to know was that you plugged a card into a PCI bus slot and it was faster.  Engineers still had agonizing issues about plug-and-play (plug-and-pray) and making jumper-free cards that booted up in the PC without any addressing conflicts.  I couldn't care less.

So I made some good points in the beginning of the thread and will move on.  And I see once more, that more recently the thread is being "polluted" with myths and misconceptions and superstitions.  It's frustrating but who really cares in the "big picture" overall scheme of things.  What difference does it really make?

As they say in sales, "just walk away."

MileHigh

MH, you are doing good. The fact that we can discuss these things without descending into stupid insults, Jane you ignorant slut, and arguments ad hominem abusive (can't spell for zits so you must be a lousy nuclear physicist) should be a model for others. We each have opinions and each know facts and we each have experience, some shared some not, and we can each cite references to support our positions. Eventually we reach a synthesis that works, even if we still might not have perfect agreement between our mental models of this ultimately mysterious phenomenon of electromagnetism. And I can see .99 shaking his head with much amusement.

And if you still don't agree with me, let's step outside in back and settle this like men.
;)

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 13, 2014, 02:54:53 PM
It's beautiful! But will it spin? I am predicting it will not, but if you can get it to, I will join you in  jumping for joy. After all, I also predicted it should be impossible to spin a sphere magnet on its true magnetic axis by applying external pulses from a coil ... and then I went ahead and did it anyway.

You could easily make it spin, though, by rotating the toroid 90 degrees out of the plane of the rotor, and then pulsing the coils at the right times to make an Orbo-effect PM. As we discussed earlier. It would really look cool even though it wouldn't be something entirely new.

Well, so far, I havnt gotten even a tiny movement from this thing.  It was a couple years ago. When I didnt get constant run results, I put it aside.  Some of it is coming back to me, maybe Ill figure it out.

So today I made a new rotor with a bearing that I had removed the grease to spin easy. The bearing I put into the white rotor didnt let the rotor spin very freely. The bearings that were originally in that rotor ar in another project that I dont want to take apart. So I made the new rotor. Only tried with 2 mags so far, no go. Hitting the coil with 170v from a 470mf cap. nada.  I dont get it. I dont remember if I used higher voltage on it back then or not.

So after the new rotor didnt move with just 2 mags, I figure adding more mags just makes the rotor heavier and any additional force on the rotor because of more mags would be negligible.

Then I decided to go very basic.  1  26awg vertical wire and 1 mag on the rotor. 170v pulse moves the rotor, just a bit. Vid getting ready to upload. Might take a bit. Will post when its done.

Anyway, Will see if I have any old vids on the rotor moving like I stated.  I hope I remember what I was doing back then.

Mags

Pretty pretty. You could also try the rotor with the magnet poles vertical instead of radial. That's how my Marinov Slab works. I think the toroidal winding (without projecting pole pieces like the QEG) is keeping the field within the core mostly, and also your system seems symmetrical, it's hard to see what unbalanced force could be expected to move the rotor. The advantage of using vertical magnets is that both poles come into play, whereas with radial magnets you only use one pole of the magnet in most designs.

It's important that you did the experiment with the vertical wire only. This shows that even the field from a single "turn" can cause stuff to move around, when the orientations are right and current strength is ample.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 12, 2014, 02:26:34 AM

Anyhow, here's the small homopolar motor I promised. What is making it turn? What is being pushed against, and how?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s

Cureent flowing in the shaft is creating magnetic field which is reacting with magnetic field produced by permanent magnet. 

Shaft is rotating only because of difference in moment of force (torque) developed by magnet having larger diameter and the reactive torque experienced by central shaft having lesser diameter.  (action and reaction forces will be the same)

If you use magnets having same diameter as that of central shaft, will it rotate?

In such cases the input power will be huge (3V, 6Amps = 18 watts) whereas output power will be negligible. It may not even be 1 Watt.


Agree or disagree?

Due to the rickity slap together of the 1 wire stator, we get to see other things, things that would not have been noticed if all had been made 'the right way' lol

Should be uploaded in about 25min, then processing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTa7j6qhWLY&feature=youtu.be

Mags

So after watching the vid, in the pic below, if we made a little framework to hold the 4 magnets and the whole thing were able to spin around the wire, using the wire as the axle, would the magnets spin around the wire?

With enough current flowing in the wire of course. ;)

Mags

Kind of what I was thinking. A cylinder with mags on the inside staggered in a spiral pattern with the wire through the middle.
I reckon even I could build that. Thanks for the vid. Reminds of what dollard talks about in some aspects.

Today on my lunch hour(my shop 2 blocks away from work) I tried some other orientations of the magnet with the 1 wire stator.

The first experiment, I had the long thin magnet standing upright like shown in my last vid, but no pole facing the wire.

The magnet didnt move when centered with the wire, but when offset to the left or right of the wire, the mag pushes away from the wire, but one direction has a stronger push than the other. ok.

Then I tried just standing the thin magnet(about 5/8inx1/8inx1/16in) on a flat surface and setting the toroid coil around it to see if the coil would move the mag or knock it over. I hada very hard time getting the magnet to stand on its 1/8 x 1/16 end, even though it is a flat end.  I was thinking, hmm, maybe having just the one terminal of the cap at 170v was having some affect on the mag by 1 wire.  So I disconnected the coil and still the same thing. Then I remembered the bench has drywall screws and are probably pulling the magnet. So I went to a particle board table on a fold out table stand(plastic and aluminum.  Tried to stand the mag upright. Couldnt do it. ??? ??? ??? ???

So I got out some 3/4 x 1/8 disk mags that can be had from Ace hardware. Got bunches of them around.

Guess what??  I could get it to stand up sometimes, but it kept turning to align with earth N and S poles. :o :o :o   Im talking no hung from a string, no needle bearing, magnet on particle board surface.   

This is surprising. I took my magnet to work. The same effect anywhere in the shop. Im at home now and it happens here also.

Ive been playing with mags for a long time, never had I encountered this. The earths field right now is super strong. You can feel the pressure of the magnet want to spin when aiming it east or west.   This is very similar to having some magnets on the same table you are working on and having them 4 to say 6 inches away from another mag on the table. Maybe closer.


I know there are some of you out there that have assortments of mags. Could you please test this for yourself and report back no matter whet the results are. So far I get the same result within a 5mi radius.

Just to show myself Im not nuts, I just checked it right here right now and still some stupid strong magnetic field is going on.

If anyone has a mechanical compass, does it react to N quicker than it ever did before?  Dont have one, just an idea. Or try a mag on a long thread and see how fast it turns N

Like ive hung a mag from a thread and it slowly would go N even teetering before settling. This thing is on a table, on edge and pulling like nothing Ive seen before in reference to earths field. Ever. ;) ;) ;) ;)

Im in south FL, kinda equitorial, so results may vary depending on location.

Mags

Short n simple.  Like I said, please test for yourselves.  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gOO7OHHeMM&feature=youtu.be

Mags

Just tried 5 of those 5/8in disks stacked and still turns with force of having a strong mag nearby. Tried a 3/8 x 1/8, turns strong.   

I spend 2 min trying to get the thin mags to stand on end with the utmost frustration.  Ive stacked pool balls 3 high, this thing was beating me at lunch time.  It wasnt till I went with the 5/8 disk, thinking it should be easier to stand on end than a nickle. Spent time eliminating possible causes.  Then it just spun and did a tiny wiggle and faced N.

What would be the effects of the earths field getting this strong or stronger? ???

Mags

Just tried it on my kitchen counter. Bathroom sink.  Have a half inch pvc board an went outside to try in in the middle of the street, in the parking lot and on the sidewalk.

The same each time. When I went out, a couple of neighbors were walking their dogs and I showed them and explained what I believe is going on. They may be weirded out by me now. lol  dont care.

But I see over 100 reads already, but no test replies.  Hmm.  Am I nuts and this is the way things are and always have been with the earths mag field and Im just not seeing it till now????? ::)   Na, couldnt be. 

Had a thought while writing that last sentence.  I just tried to roll the mag in line with N and S. Keeps falling over, no roll. If I roll it E and W with the mag naturally aligned with N, it rolls. Aligned with S, it falls over. Every time.

Just pinched myself. it hurted.  ;D

Mags

http://www.geomagnetism.org/?p=128

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield_2.html

Just looked up some stuff. No articles on increased earth field, but some are saying it is fading.

Not by my understanding.  Im going to call a relative about 150mi N of me and send them a mag to try.    Im dying to know. So this is the only way I will find out for sure I suppose.

Mags

Hi Magluvin,

Guess we can rule out poltergeists :) , I tried the experiment and got the same results, live near NY. I tried on different surfaces and to make sure there was nothing in the house went outside with a flat glass casserole bowl (low friction) and it also aligned N/S. I Stacked two 1/4" wide disc magnets together and they also turned without falling over. I tried a thin square magnet but didn't get it to turn.

This map shows magnetic anomalies in your area there is a kml file for Google Earth.

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/magnetic/

Thanks for sharing your experiments.

Quote from: DreamThinkBuild on October 14, 2014, 11:56:53 PM
Hi Magluvin,

Guess we can rule out poltergeists :) , I tried the experiment and got the same results, live near NY. I tried on different surfaces and to make sure there was nothing in the house went outside with a flat glass casserole bowl (low friction) and it also aligned N/S. I Stacked two 1/4" wide disc magnets together and they also turned without falling over. I tried a thin square magnet but didn't get it to turn.

This map shows magnetic anomalies in your area there is a kml file for Google Earth.

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/magnetic/ (http://mrdata.usgs.gov/magnetic/)

Thanks for sharing your experiments.

Thank you for that Dream.  ;D    Whew, I have been pulling my hair out waiting for a replication.  ;)

So what do you think?  Has it always been this way, or do you find it very abnormal?

Thanks again, really. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Mags

A great thread,but still very vague on what a magnetic field really is ???
What has no mass but can exert a force other than photons?,or do magnetic fields have photon's?- I see no light emission from a magnet.Or do magnetic fields have mass- i think not.

Here we have an invisable force made from what?.
If a magnetic field has mass,then we have a looped system,where mass is ejected from one end(known as north) and drawn back in the other end(known as south)-Is this a self running device?.

What is the maximum rate of magnetic ecceleration? If a magnet was traveling at light speed through space,with the north pole leading,would another magnet traveling an inch behind it of the same size,and also with the north pole leading,catch the first magnet. Would it travel faster than the speed of light to latch onto the first magnet?

It is also interesting that a PM can produce far more electrical power than it took to make it in the first place-when used in a generator. The PM is a device that is charged up once,and last's for decades. I once seen a video(will try and find it again)where a guy magnetised 1000 3 inch nail's that held up more weight(steel plate) than the small PM he used to magnetise the nails in the first place. He then showed that there was still the same amount of pull force(magnetic field strength) in the PM he used to magnetise the nails as there was when he started the experiment.

Hey Tin.

Have you tried the magnet on the table test I described in my first post on this page?   Im surprised not more have tried and commented yet, other than Dreamthinkbuild, and he confirmed my findings.  Very surprised.  What, is it a big secret that we should not be talking about??

Good to see ya around ;)

Mags

Quote from: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 01:00:19 PM
Hey Tin.

Have you tried the magnet on the table test I described in my first post on this page?   Im surprised not more have tried and commented yet, other than Dreamthinkbuild, and he confirmed my findings.  Very surprised.  What, is it a big secret that we should not be talking about??

Good to see ya around ;)

Mags

Dear Mag's.

I noticed the very same thing a few weeks back !!  Smiley

Video proof !!??           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkJz-ZUDb4

Cheers Grum.

Sure, Mags, it's pretty much always been that way, and now that we are playing with stronger magnets we just notice it more. I have some N56 discs I just got a week or so ago and they do the same thing. Even electromagnets suspended on good pivots will do it.
I first noticed this strong effect of the Earth's field a few years ago when letting flat magnets slide down smooth aluminum or copper ramps. Depending on the orientation of the ramp wrt the Earth's field, the sliding magnet will either jump off the ramp, or slide smoothly, depending on which pole is facing the ramp.

I found this video that I thought you might be interested in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIf9iPskgJs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIf9iPskgJs)

ETA: I'll add that if you are playing with magnets on a surface, like a tabletop, a tiny little vibration can often help get things moving. Like sounds in the room making the tabletop resonate. This frees up the "sticktion" and lets the magnet rotate to align with whatever.

Quote from: tinman on October 15, 2014, 08:23:57 AM
A great thread,but still very vague on what a magnetic field really is ???

It's a map of how a particular kind of test particle will move, at any particular place in space. I know that's not a very satisfactory answer. You could think of it as an actual warpage of space, like gravity, but only acting not on mass but on charge. What causes the warpage? For EM, it is charge. For gravity, it is mass. Charge and mass/energy are fundamental, conserved quantities. Explain them, and you have explained just about every mystery in physics.

Quote
What has no mass but can exert a force other than photons?,or do magnetic fields have photon's?- I see no light emission from a magnet.Or do magnetic fields have mass- i think not.

Magnetic fields can store momentum. This is almost as good as having mass, when it comes to moving other stuff around by interacting with it. Moving, changing, accelerating back and forth magnetic fields do produce, somehow, photons. They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light" and it is more convenient to treat them as waves: radio waves for example. Whatever is making the field oscillate is putting in the energy that is radiated outward as photons of the RF. Sounds like a great movie, dunnit? Photons of the RF....

Quote
Here we have an invisable force made from what?.

Angels. Or little arrows in a 3-d field simulator.  ;)

Quote
If a magnetic field has mass,then we have a looped system,where mass is ejected from one end(known as north) and drawn back in the other end(known as south)-Is this a self running device?.

But they don't, and the field doesn't do that, and nothing is flowing along a field line unless you put it there (like plasma, etc.).

Quote

What is the maximum rate of magnetic ecceleration? If a magnet was traveling at light speed through space,with the north pole leading,would another magnet traveling an inch behind it of the same size,and also with the north pole leading,catch the first magnet. Would it travel faster than the speed of light to latch onto the first magnet?

Now you are asking questions that are above my pay grade. I will have to defer to TA on that one.
8)

Quote from: Grumage on October 15, 2014, 02:35:29 PM
Dear Mag's.

I noticed the very same thing a few weeks back !!  Smiley

Video proof !!??           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkJz-ZUDb4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLkJz-ZUDb4)

Cheers Grum.

Also posted at OUR

Hey Grum

Thanks for showing.  Ill check the vid when I get home. Shop laptop is acting up with vids and such.

Tk says its always been this way..   He also said that the more powerful mags these days are the reason why.

Well, that disk and a stack of them are from about 10 years ago and they are not the strongest puppys I own over that period. Ace hardware pack.

Back then I was setting them up on end like that many times without this issue. In fact I clearly remember thinking how weak the earths field was as I would have to hang the mag from a thread then to have it go back and forth  slowly till finally resting N n S.   I tried a piece of 42 awg wire taped to the edge yesterday and it definitely turns like there is a local source, or, the earths field is stronger, not like I witnessed back then. Ive never had to recheck other tables, out on the sidewalk, in the middle of a street, the kitchen counter, the bathroom vanity just to have some solid verification. Ive had issues with screws or metal framework under a table top and eliminated them and would have to say, never was there an effect like this that was 'too' noticeable to ignore. Was thinking all last night, wow, this is strong enough to offset things if your a magnet motor experimenter.

Anyway, so far, Dreamthinkbuild verified it in NY, and now you.   Now I want to see what others like Lasersaber and Oldscientist, some that would fully see a possible difference as compared to just some years ago due to their vast experience with mags.

Thanks Grum.  (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunityresearch.com%2FSmileys%2FAlive%2Fwink.gif&hash=7a67d6696217e03daac268b58edf5fa3001fc6dc)

Mags

Mags:

Mine do it here too.  (Bowling Green, KY)  I have about 100 1/4" dia. x .125 thick neo mags  (N-35) and tried one on it's edge and it spun around quickly.  I stuck 2 of them together it happened with even more gusto.  I have never noticed this before but, I have to say I have never tried this.  I read TK's explanation and he is most probably correct but, I have to say it seems a bit spooky to me to see it happen right here on my bench.

Bill

Quote from: Pirate88179 on October 15, 2014, 09:22:15 PM
Mags:

Mine do it here too.  (Bowling Green, KY)  I have about 100 1/4" dia. x .125 thick neo mags  (N-35) and tried one on it's edge and it spun around quickly.  I stuck 2 of them together it happened with even more gusto.  I have never noticed this before but, I have to say I have never tried this.  I read TK's explanation and he is most probably correct but, I have to say it seems a bit spooky to me to see it happen right here on my bench.

Bill

Hey Bill

Thanks for testing.  Spooky is a good word for it. ;)   looked up YT for neo magnet compass and there are a few in the last couple years with some decent movement. But not any old vids of it.

Where it really was hitting me hard with the whole thing was the fact that the disk kept falling over if it didnt turn. Like I said, these disks are nearly 10 years old. And back then I did play with them on edge while manipulating them from a distance or from under the table with another mag.  This what we are seeing here is not the same experience at all.  This to me was disturbing and delightful with sprinkles and some what the heck sauce. Like back when I was fiddling with the whipmag, taking the seals off of the bearings, cleaning them out real good and using those N42 diametrics, I never seen the likes of this. I had some bearings that would not spin well at all with the mag right on top of it, then others that were a dream spinner with the mag, due to some were less attractive to the mag thus less tensions there. 

They were not as good as the bearings I used graphite in, but better than standing this disk on edge on particle board. Maybe it would be a good idea to put one of those stators back together and see if it tuns N/S like what we are seeing here today.  That was about 6 years ago. Still have those mags, bearings and housing tubes. Back then we were concerned with hardware, bearings magnetic effects on the whipmag system as a whole. So if a stator was pulling toward  something, like a screw in the table, metal framework around the device, what ever, then this earth field issue would have been a big issue back then.

Thanks for the test Bill.  ;D

Mags

Sure, and I'm doing it here in South Texas with the n56 discs. If you could mount the magnet in a gimbal you could also see the dip of the field in your area. Take the mounted magnet on a trip and watch the dip angle change as you travel north and south. The closer to the equator you are, the more horizontal (no dip) the field, and so it should be easier to stand the disk on edge and it should orient strongly. In the far North or South, it should be difficult even to stand the magnet on edge, because it will want to align with the dip of the earth's field which gets larger as you approach the pole.

ETA: Let us please not forget that lots of people still are navigating using magnetic compasses to find their way to their destination. And that many different scientific and academic agencies are monitoring the Earth's field continuously.

Quote from: Magluvin on October 15, 2014, 06:16:15 PM
Also posted at OUR

Hey Grum

Thanks for showing.  Ill check the vid when I get home. Shop laptop is acting up with vids and such.

Tk says its always been this way..   He also said that the more powerful mags these days are the reason why.

Well, that disk and a stack of them are from about 10 years ago and they are not the strongest puppys I own over that period. Ace hardware pack.

Back then I was setting them up on end like that many times without this issue. In fact I clearly remember thinking how weak the earths field was as I would have to hang the mag from a thread then to have it go back and forth  slowly till finally resting N n S.   I tried a piece of 42 awg wire taped to the edge yesterday and it definitely turns like there is a local source, or, the earths field is stronger, not like I witnessed back then. Ive never had to recheck other tables, out on the sidewalk, in the middle of a street, the kitchen counter, the bathroom vanity just to have some solid verification. Ive had issues with screws or metal framework under a table top and eliminated them and would have to say, never was there an effect like this that was 'too' noticeable to ignore. Was thinking all last night, wow, this is strong enough to offset things if your a magnet motor experimenter.

Anyway, so far, Dreamthinkbuild verified it in NY, and now you.   Now I want to see what others like Lasersaber and Oldscientist, some that would fully see a possible difference as compared to just some years ago due to their vast experience with mags.

Thanks Grum.  (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunityresearch.com%2FSmileys%2FAlive%2Fwink.gif&hash=7a67d6696217e03daac268b58edf5fa3001fc6dc)

Mags

Same here in West OZ Mags-a very strong rotation on the disk magnets.Never thought it would be this strong. But i am lost as to how you think this would aid in an all magnet motor ???. What would be the difference in using the earths magnetic field as apposed to that of a PM's magnetic field?.

This actually give me an idea for free energy travel lol-will have to do a video on this one for sure.

@Mag

QuoteThanks for testing.  Spooky is a good word for it. (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fwink.gif&hash=0d9aacf9391b7fda4adbf7cd091f687bfd283341)   looked up YT
for neo magnet compass and there are a few in the last couple years with some
decent movement. But not any old vids of it.

We should remember that the concept of flying through the air was also spooky not long ago because most thought it impossible. I would agree this neo magnet compass is something new... to you, however I noticed this effect a very long time ago. Think about it, how small the compass needle is and how small and weak it's field is and how fast it tracks the Earths magnetic field. Now consider your magnet and how powerful it is in relation to a compass needle.
No offense but if were going to move forward people have to stop chasing smoke and mirrors. We must think clearly concerning what we think we see and why it is happening. Now which do you think is more likely... the Earths magnetic field just increased drastically or you just learned something new which should have been obvious?.
AC

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 15, 2014, 03:37:41 PM
It's a map of how a particular kind of test particle will move, at any particular place in space. I know that's not a very satisfactory answer. You could think of it as an actual warpage of space, like gravity, but only acting not on mass but on charge. What causes the warpage? For EM, it is charge. For gravity, it is mass. Charge and mass/energy are fundamental, conserved quantities. Explain them, and you have explained just about every mystery in physics. Magnetic fields can store momentum. This is almost as good as having mass, when it comes to moving other stuff around by interacting with it. Moving, changing, accelerating back and forth magnetic fields do produce, somehow, photons. They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light" and it is more convenient to treat them as waves: radio waves for example. Whatever is making the field oscillate is putting in the energy that is radiated outward as photons of the RF. Sounds like a great movie, dunnit? Photons of the RF.... Angels. Or little arrows in a 3-d field simulator.  ;)  But they don't, and the field doesn't do that, and nothing is flowing along a field line unless you put it there (like plasma, etc.). Now you are asking questions that are above my pay grade. I will have to defer to TA on that one.
8)

There must be something that act's against the other something :-\. What i mean is-one magnetic field acts against the other,wether it be like poles ,or unlike poles. You just cant have nothing interacting with another nothing ::) So what dose this invisable force consist of?.

Quote:  They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light"
They are called what then?,and would a solar pannel see this low frequency/long wave length?.Wouldnt that be a hoot-throw some magnets on a solar pannel,and produce power without light :D

Quote from: tinman on October 15, 2014, 11:30:15 PM
Same here in West OZ Mags-a very strong rotation on the disk magnets.Never thought it would be this strong. But i am lost as to how you think this would aid in an all magnet motor ??? . What would be the difference in using the earths magnetic field as apposed to that of a PM's magnetic field?.

This actually give me an idea for free energy travel lol-will have to do a video on this one for sure.

Never said it would help with making a magnet motor. ;)   I have played pretty heavily with mags for nearly 10 years.  When I had first seen the perendev motor, that was when I got pretty serious. Not that i believe the perendev motor worked, but the idea of it all just really took off for me.

But in all that time doing this that and the other with these neo mags, some of it on YT, tons of it just on the bench, I should have seen this then. I should have seen it 1 year ago, 2 years ago, 8 years ago.  Stood these disks on edge many times and no issues like this.

Did a test today after work.  I set up an identical disk mag on one end of pvc board, 1/8 in has very smooth surface, with masking tape on edge facing N/S. Then I put another disk on edge between the fixed mag and earth N.  8 inches away from each other was a neutral zone where the free standing mag could face E/W without falling over, turning toward the other mag or turning toward N or turning full N.  8 inches.  Im sorry but this should have come to my attention long ago. Im still in disbelief that this isnt something that is more recent of a happening. 

Anyway, 8 inches.  Thats how strong the earths field is, equal to a similar magnet 8 inches away. Like I said, Ive had many issues with nails in a table, or screws, a nearby screw driver causing a mag in a project to want to turn in the direction of that object. And also issues with nearby magnets close to projects that affected desired effects. So this should have affected many of the projects/experiments that i have done. So this strong earth field should have been a problem(noticed AND recognized) for me many times before, considering it is equal to another similar magnet 8 inches away. Thats what I meant about its affects on peoples projects/mag motors, etc.  ;D ;)

Mags

Quote from: allcanadian on October 16, 2014, 01:39:43 AM
@MagWe should remember that the concept of flying through the air was also spooky not long ago because most thought it impossible. I would agree this neo magnet compass is something new... to you, however I noticed this effect a very long time ago. Think about it, how small the compass needle is and how small and weak it's field is and how fast it tracks the Earths magnetic field. Now consider your magnet and how powerful it is in relation to a compass needle.
No offense but if were going to move forward people have to stop chasing smoke and mirrors. We must think clearly concerning what we think we see and why it is happening. Now which do you think is more likely... the Earths magnetic field just increased drastically or you just learned something new which should have been obvious?.
AC

"Now which do you think is more likely... the Earths magnetic field just increased drastically or you just learned something new which should have been obvious?."

Exactly. It should have been obvious before now. it should have been obvious to me, to Grum, to Bill, to Tinman. But their reactions, maybe not as strong as mine, were definitely in the 'SURPRISE' zone. And I bet that they and many many others that have played with magnets for years, other than say TK ;D , have had many chances of magnet play/experimentation to notice and recognize this over the years. These are the people I would like to find, ones that can show this from years ago, if there are any others than TK. ;)   

Mags

One other test I did today.  The air core toroid, when discharging the cap, produces a field through the center, as if it were wire wound in a loop instead of a toroid.  Magnet tips over one way only, unless you reverse the polarity of input.  The 1/2in x 1/8 x 1/16 will flip, just once, pulse after that nothing till you flip it over again.  Anywhere in the circle of the coil seems the same.

Odd for a toroid isnt it? ;)

Mags

Quote from: tinman on October 16, 2014, 03:12:23 AM
There must be something that act's against the other something :-\. What i mean is-one magnetic field acts against the other,wether it be like poles ,or unlike poles. You just cant have nothing interacting with another nothing ::) So what dose this invisable force consist of?.

Quote:  They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light" They are called what then?,and would a solar pannel see this low frequency/long wave length?.Wouldnt that be a hoot-throw some magnets on a solar pannel,and produce power without light :D

I think that question can be put this way : When you bring an iron piece near a magnet, it should simply induce opposite pole in the iron piece and leave it.  But why should magnet attract it with a force?


I have some more crazy questions:

Moving electrons produce magnetic field in a conductor carrying curent.  So, when you bring a repelling pole near it,  the repulsion force should act on electrons producing the magnetic field and electrons should be ejected out of the conductor.   But actually we see that repulsion force acts on mass of conductor as a whole imparting momentum on entire mass of the conductor itself. (which is the principle used in all motors)

When you subject a current carrying conductor to extreme repulsion, conductor itself will bend but electrons will not be ejected out.   Why?

Does it mean that electrons are tightly held to mass of the conductor?   If moving electrons are tightly held to the conductor, how they will move? 

And why they are called free electrons???  (when they cannot jump out of conductor subjected to repulsion?)

Can some 'genius' answer it?

Newton II (and others).
I guess this file should shed some light on magnetism:

http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/534/#.VEEP0clxg0U (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/534/#.VEEP0clxg0U)

Electromagnets for attracting non-ferrous metals

Quote from: Qwert on October 17, 2014, 08:56:48 AM
Newton II (and others).
I guess this file should shed some light on magnetism:

http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/534/#.VEEP0clxg0U (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/534/#.VEEP0clxg0U)

Electromagnets for attracting non-ferrous metals

Hi Qwert,

Although there is not much info given on another book, perhaps you could try to search this book hinted at in this post, first by member Mk1 and then Magluvin:

http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg357978/#msg357978 

When I had read Magluvin's description on that book, I though of this book you just uploaded but Magluvin wrote back then that it was not that book:

http://www.overunity.com/11350/confirming-the-delayed-lenz-effect/msg358021/#msg358021 

When you have some time, please try to look for the other book. 

Thanks, Gyula

Quote from: Newton II on October 17, 2014, 03:16:19 AM


I have some more crazy questions:

Moving electrons produce magnetic field in a conductor carrying curent.  So, when you bring a repelling pole near it,  the repulsion force should act on electrons producing the magnetic field and electrons should be ejected out of the conductor.   But actually we see that repulsion force acts on mass of conductor as a whole imparting momentum on entire mass of the conductor itself. (which is the principle used in all motors)

When you subject a current carrying conductor to extreme repulsion, conductor itself will bend but electrons will not be ejected out.   Why?

Does it mean that electrons are tightly held to mass of the conductor?   If moving electrons are tightly held to the conductor, how they will move? 


Can some 'genius' answer it?

It is my beliefe that free electrons only become free to move when a magnetic field is present. Lets look at the homopolar generator. Only when there is a magnetic field present in the area of the spining copper disk,will the free electrons flow through that disk. I really think that the homopolar generator holds many answers we seek,but no one as of yet has tried to piece together how the magnetic field and spin of the disk are interacting with each other.

Some here will say they know exactly how a homopolar generator work's,but cannot explain what the magnetic field actually is. Sure we know how to create it,and why it it is formed,but still dont know what it is. The other thing you have to ask is this-is it the moving electrons that produce a magnetic field,or is it the magnetic field that allows the electrons to move?.The homopolar generator says the latter is true-you need a magnetic field in order to get the free electrons to flow,and the stronger that field,the more electrons will flow.The homopolare generator produces a low voltage,but very high current,and as current is carried by electrons,then the higher the current MUST mean that more electrons are flowing.

Some things that stand out in a homopolar generator that may hold the answers are-
1-Stronger the magnetic field through the disk-the more current is produced.
2-The faster the rotation of the disk-the more current is produced.
Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed.
3-Current is produced weather the magnets are fixed or rotate with the copper disk.
4-Current isnt produced if the disk is fixed,and magnets are rotated around the disk.
5-As we have what is called the north field on one side of the disk,and the south on the other,then the disk itself must be in this neutral zone of the magnetic field they talk about-could this be why the current flow direction changes when the rotation direction changes?

Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux. So they then decided that they would use the Lorentz force law to explain it's opperation.Quote: The force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction.
Now,the magnetic flux vector thing. Problem is that the magnetic flux within the disk is this neutral field(half north/half south).Since when can a current be produced using this neutral field?.And why dose current flow change direction by only reversing the disk rotation,when the radial force would remain the same regardless of rotational direction?.

There must be a flow of something between the north and south field of a magnet,and what ever this flow is made of is what is acting apon the electrons.Lets say the flow of this mistical matter is from north to south of the magnet's,and so this flow is through the copper disc. By flipping the magnets over so as we reverse the polarity across(through)the copper disk,we reverse the flow of this misticle matter-so this would explain the reverse in current flow through the disk. But why dose the current reverse direction when we leave the magnetic polarity the same,but reverse the direction of rotation of the copper disk :-\. Well maybe(just maybe) TA's theory on magnetic spin is right-i mean it fit's right into how the homopolar generator dose what it dose.Maybe the copper disk now has this spiral magnetic field within it,and the electrons are being pumped out of the disk much the same as water is pumped out of a centrifugal water pump. And like the water pump,if we reverse the direction of the rotor,we reverse the direction of flow.Also like in the water pump,if we spin the magnets over(spin the impeller over)we also get a reverse in flow.Is this why one of Tesla's homopolar generator design's used spiral rotor's?.

Quote from: tinman on October 17, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
It is my beliefe that free electrons only become free to move when a magnetic field is present. Lets look at the homopolar generator. Only when there is a magnetic field present in the area of the spining copper disk,will the free electrons flow through that disk. I really think that the homopolar generator holds many answers we seek,but no one as of yet has tried to piece together how the magnetic field and spin of the disk are interacting with each other.

Some here will say they know exactly how a homopolar generator work's,but cannot explain what the magnetic field actually is. Sure we know how to create it,and why it it is formed,but still dont know what it is. The other thing you have to ask is this-is it the moving electrons that produce a magnetic field,or is it the magnetic field that allows the electrons to move?.The homopolar generator says the latter is true-you need a magnetic field in order to get the free electrons to flow,and the stronger that field,the more electrons will flow.The homopolare generator produces a low voltage,but very high current,and as current is carried by electrons,then the higher the current MUST mean that more electrons are flowing.

Some things that stand out in a homopolar generator that may hold the answers are-
1-Stronger the magnetic field through the disk-the more current is produced.
2-The faster the rotation of the disk-the more current is produced.
Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed.
3-Current is produced weather the magnets are fixed or rotate with the copper disk.
4-Current isnt produced if the disk is fixed,and magnets are rotated around the disk.
5-As we have what is called the north field on one side of the disk,and the south on the other,then the disk itself must be in this neutral zone of the magnetic field they talk about-could this be why the current flow direction changes when the rotation direction changes?

Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux. So they then decided that they would use the Lorentz force law to explain it's opperation.Quote: The force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction.
Now,the magnetic flux vector thing. Problem is that the magnetic flux within the disk is this neutral field(half north/half south).Since when can a current be produced using this neutral field?.And why dose current flow change direction by only reversing the disk rotation,when the radial force would remain the same regardless of rotational direction?.

There must be a flow of something between the north and south field of a magnet,and what ever this flow is made of is what is acting apon the electrons.Lets say the flow of this mistical matter is from north to south of the magnet's,and so this flow is through the copper disc. By flipping the magnets over so as we reverse the polarity across(through)the copper disk,we reverse the flow of this misticle matter-so this would explain the reverse in current flow through the disk. But why dose the current reverse direction when we leave the magnetic polarity the same,but reverse the direction of rotation of the copper disk :-\ . Well maybe(just maybe) TA's theory on magnetic spin is right-i mean it fit's right into how the homopolar generator dose what it dose.Maybe the copper disk now has this spiral magnetic field within it,and the electrons are being pumped out of the disk much the same as water is pumped out of a centrifugal water pump. And like the water pump,if we reverse the direction of the rotor,we reverse the direction of flow.Also like in the water pump,if we spin the magnets over(spin the impeller over)we also get a reverse in flow.Is this why one of Tesla's homopolar generator design's used spiral rotor's?.

"Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux."

Actually Faraday's law of induction is the only thing that accurately explains how the homopolar generator works.  That is, if you understand how the brush connected to the outside of the rotor, and the other contact to the center of the rotor, creates a "virtual wire" across the rotor, that creates a virtual wire that is constantly moving through a magnetic field (experiencing a constant change of magnetic field as long as there is motion).  The relative motion within a magnetic field is what produces a polarized current (DC).

Liberty

Quote from: Liberty on October 17, 2014, 10:32:59 PM
"Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux."

Actually Faraday's law of induction is the only thing that accurately explains how the homopolar generator works.  That is, if you understand how the brush connected to the outside of the rotor, and the other contact to the center of the rotor, creates a "virtual wire" across the rotor, that creates a virtual wire that is constantly moving through a magnetic field (experiencing a constant change of magnetic field as long as there is motion).  The relative motion within a magnetic field is what produces a polarized current (DC).

Liberty

There is no change in magnetic field,nor is there a change in current direction-there for Faradays law of magnetic induction dosnt apply to the homopolar generator.Quote: Like all dynamos, the Faraday disc converts kinetic energy to electrical energy. This machine can not be analysed using Faraday's own law of electromagnetic induction. This law (in its modern form) states that an electric current is induced in a closed electrical circuit when the magnetic flux enclosed by the circuit changes. In Faraday's law, EMF is the time-derivative of flux, so a DC EMF is only possible if the magnetic flux is getting uniformly larger and larger perpetually. But in the generator, the magnetic field is constant and the disc stays in the same position, so no magnetic fluxes are growing larger and larger. So this example cannot be analyzed directly with Faraday's law.

The Lorentz force law is more easily used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law, formulated thirty years after Faraday's death, states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction. The radial movement of the electrons in the disc produces a charge separation between the center of the disc and its rim, and if the circuit is completed an electric current will be produced.
There is no wire constantly moving through the magnetic field,as both the wire and field are stationary.
Also the twin disk homopolar generator disprove's your theory Liberty,as both brushes are at the center of the carrying shaft-there is no outer brush. Are you sure your not thinking of a homopolar motor?.

Quote from: tinman on October 17, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
It is my beliefe that free electrons only become free to move when a magnetic field is present. Lets look at the homopolar generator. Only when there is a magnetic field present in the area of the spining copper disk,will the free electrons flow through that disk. I really think that the homopolar generator holds many answers we seek,but no one as of yet has tried to piece together how the magnetic field and spin of the disk are interacting with each other.

Some here will say they know exactly how a homopolar generator work's,but cannot explain what the magnetic field actually is. Sure we know how to create it,and why it it is formed,but still dont know what it is. The other thing you have to ask is this-is it the moving electrons that produce a magnetic field,or is it the magnetic field that allows the electrons to move?.The homopolar generator says the latter is true-you need a magnetic field in order to get the free electrons to flow,and the stronger that field,the more electrons will flow.The homopolare generator produces a low voltage,but very high current,and as current is carried by electrons,then the higher the current MUST mean that more electrons are flowing.

Some things that stand out in a homopolar generator that may hold the answers are-
1-Stronger the magnetic field through the disk-the more current is produced.
2-The faster the rotation of the disk-the more current is produced.
Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed.
3-Current is produced weather the magnets are fixed or rotate with the copper disk.
4-Current isnt produced if the disk is fixed,and magnets are rotated around the disk.
5-As we have what is called the north field on one side of the disk,and the south on the other,then the disk itself must be in this neutral zone of the magnetic field they talk about-could this be why the current flow direction changes when the rotation direction changes?

Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction cannot be used to explain how the homopolar generator work's,as there is no change in magnetic flux. So they then decided that they would use the Lorentz force law to explain it's opperation.Quote: The force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction.
Now,the magnetic flux vector thing. Problem is that the magnetic flux within the disk is this neutral field(half north/half south).Since when can a current be produced using this neutral field?.And why dose current flow change direction by only reversing the disk rotation,when the radial force would remain the same regardless of rotational direction?.

There must be a flow of something between the north and south field of a magnet,and what ever this flow is made of is what is acting apon the electrons.Lets say the flow of this mistical matter is from north to south of the magnet's,and so this flow is through the copper disc. By flipping the magnets over so as we reverse the polarity across(through)the copper disk,we reverse the flow of this misticle matter-so this would explain the reverse in current flow through the disk. But why dose the current reverse direction when we leave the magnetic polarity the same,but reverse the direction of rotation of the copper disk :-\ . Well maybe(just maybe) TA's theory on magnetic spin is right-i mean it fit's right into how the homopolar generator dose what it dose.Maybe the copper disk now has this spiral magnetic field within it,and the electrons are being pumped out of the disk much the same as water is pumped out of a centrifugal water pump. And like the water pump,if we reverse the direction of the rotor,we reverse the direction of flow.Also like in the water pump,if we spin the magnets over(spin the impeller over)we also get a reverse in flow.Is this why one of Tesla's homopolar generator design's used spiral rotor's?.

"Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed."

Exactly. It is odd isnt it? ;D

Thats why I suggest that if the electron is the source of the magnetic field produced in the current carrying wire, then the electron must have a positive side to it and a negative side to it, in order for the electrons magnetic orientation to coincide accordingly when DC voltage is applied to the wire. The charge from the DC input causes the electrons to orient themselves  +- +- +- in the wire, therefore those affected electrons mag fields produce the same orientation around the wire. The more electrons affected by the input charge, the stronger the field around the wire due to those electrons being in the correct +- alignment and accordingly their field orientation.

Other wise, you can say it is odd and still wonder why.  ;) ;D I just came up with this the other day, as is totally plausible.  ;)

Same as moving the magnets field across the wire or copper disk. The moving magnetic field causes the electrons circular field to orient the electrons in a way that their + and - sides line up creating a charge in the wire + at one end of the wire and - at the other. And if the 2 ends of the wire have a load or are shorted, then current flows.


The wire is made up of imperfections and atoms are oriented all different ways. So the electrons magnetic fields are all a mix. So no measurable field around the wire. But if we hit that wire with say 40kv from a cap, there will be a lot of electrons lined up from one end of the wire to the other +- +- +- +-  and a huge magnetic field is produced, along with all the extra electrons in the wire introduced by the discharge..

Mags

Quote from: tinman on October 17, 2014, 10:44:43 PM
There is no change in magnetic field,nor is there a change in current direction-there for Faradays law of magnetic induction dosnt apply to the homopolar generator.Quote: Like all dynamos, the Faraday disc converts kinetic energy to electrical energy. This machine can not be analysed using Faraday's own law of electromagnetic induction. This law (in its modern form) states that an electric current is induced in a closed electrical circuit when the magnetic flux enclosed by the circuit changes. In Faraday's law, EMF is the time-derivative of flux, so a DC EMF is only possible if the magnetic flux is getting uniformly larger and larger perpetually. But in the generator, the magnetic field is constant and the disc stays in the same position, so no magnetic fluxes are growing larger and larger. So this example cannot be analyzed directly with Faraday's law.

The Lorentz force law is more easily used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law, formulated thirty years after Faraday's death, states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction. The radial movement of the electrons in the disc produces a charge separation between the center of the disc and its rim, and if the circuit is completed an electric current will be produced.
There is no wire constantly moving through the magnetic field,as both the wire and field are stationary.
Also the twin disk homopolar generator disprove's your theory Liberty,as both brushes are at the center of the carrying shaft-there is no outer brush. Are you sure your not thinking of a homopolar motor?.

In a magnet, the magnetic field is produced by many little magnets.  That is why when you pass a wire through a continuous magnetic field (surface of a magnet), it produces current flow.  The same principle in a standard generator is also working in a homopolar generator.  The homopolar generator that has a brush on the outside of the rotor and a contact on the center of the rotor, takes the shortest path, which is a straight path (virtual wire) which is the lowest resistance path.  This "virtual wire" is only present when the rotor is spun, as that is the only time when a current is produced.  The magnetic field combines with relative motion to produce current flow.  That current flow will act like a wire that passes through a magnetic field.  The reason the voltage is low is because the wire is short.  The reason the current is high, is because the conductive platter performs as a wide, flat wire.  The movement of the wire, is due to the rotation of the platter, and the moving contact on the rotor, constantly moving the position of the wire in the magnetic field.  Faster rotation produces more output current.  A stronger magnetic field will also produce a stronger current.

With the above in mind, rethink how you understand the operation of the twin disk homopolar generator.

Liberty

Quote from: Liberty on October 17, 2014, 11:06:02 PM
In a magnet, the magnetic field is produced by many little magnets.  That is why when you pass a wire through a continuous magnetic field (surface of a magnet), it produces current flow.  The same principle in a standard generator is also working in a homopolar generator.  The homopolar generator that has a brush on the outside of the rotor and a contact on the center of the rotor, takes the shortest path, which is a straight path (virtual wire) which is the lowest resistance path.  This "virtual wire" is only present when the rotor is spun, as that is the only time when a current is produced.  The magnetic field combines with relative motion to produce current flow.  That current flow will act like a wire that passes through a magnetic field.  The reason the voltage is low is because the wire is short.  The reason the current is high, is because the conductive platter performs as a wide, flat wire.  The movement of the wire, is due to the rotation of the platter, and the moving contact on the rotor, constantly moving the position of the wire in the magnetic field.  Faster rotation produces more output current.  A stronger magnetic field will also produce a stronger current.

With the above in mind, rethink how you understand the operation of the twin disk homopolar generator.

Liberty

Liberty
The reason you get a current flow when passing a wire through a continuous magnetic fiels is because the strength of that field cutting through the wire is growing as your wire approaches that field, and  diminishing as your wire leaves the field-AC current.The magnetic field in relation to the disk is constant and dose not change in strength-regardless of your virtual wire or not. Your virtual wire is alway in a constant(unchanging) magnetic field,regardless of where that virtual wire may be on the disk.

The twin disk HP generator has a full loop around the outer perimeter of both disk-this is the current flow conection between both disk,so there is no one contact point or virtual wire as you say. The output is then taken from the center of each disk shaft.There is also Tesla's design of a twin disk HP generator,which uses a steel belt to transfer current from one disk to the other. This also has a contact of 180* around each disk.
So you see,this virtual wire you speak of is not how the HP generator  is working,and thus the law of magnetic induction dosnt apply.

Quote from: tinman on October 17, 2014, 11:36:25 PM
Liberty
The reason you get a current flow when passing a wire through a continuous magnetic fiels is because the strength of that field cutting through the wire is growing as your wire approaches that field, and  diminishing as your wire leaves the field-AC current.The magnetic field in relation to the disk is constant and dose not change in strength-regardless of your virtual wire or not. Your virtual wire is alway in a constant(unchanging) magnetic field,regardless of where that virtual wire may be on the disk.

The twin disk HP generator has a full loop around the outer perimeter of both disk-this is the current flow conection between both disk,so there is no one contact point or virtual wire as you say. The output is then taken from the center of each disk shaft.There is also Tesla's design of a twin disk HP generator,which uses a steel belt to transfer current from one disk to the other. This also has a contact of 180* around each disk.
So you see,this virtual wire you speak of is not how the HP generator  is working,and thus the law of magnetic induction dosnt apply.

I would agree that a current is generated as a coil approaches a magnet and as it leaves a magnet.  (Standard generator).  Further, it is known that a wire (not a coil) passing over a continuous (unchanging) magnetic field produces a current in the wire, as long as motion is present between the wire and magnetic field.  However, in this case, you cannot use a loop of wire (coil), as the current will cancel, and there will be no output.    In the case of the magnetic field being constant in relation to the disk, the latter case is the known reason for current flow.  It is the wire (conductive path) passing through a constant magnetic field (acting as a wire) that will produce a current.  Mr. Faraday was actually correct about induction, and is the basis of operation of the Faraday (HP) generator and the standard generator.

Liberty

Quote from: tinman on October 17, 2014, 10:09:24 PM

Some things that stand out in a homopolar generator that may hold the answers are-
1-Stronger the magnetic field through the disk-the more current is produced.
2-The faster the rotation of the disk-the more current is produced.
Some odd things are-
1-reverse rotation of disk(with magnetic field in same polarity),and the current flow is reversed.
2-reverse the polarity of the magnetic field through the disk,and the current flow is reversed.
3-Current is produced weather the magnets are fixed or rotate with the copper disk.
4-Current isnt produced if the disk is fixed,and magnets are rotated around the disk.

It may be for the reason that when you rotate the disc, the outer edge of the disc moves with higher velocity than inner edges of the disc to catch up with RPM. This may create some sort of 'gradient' or 'potential difference'  between  rim  and the centre making the electrons to flow.

In that case if you use a disc of very large diameter, it should produce a considerable gradient creating a higher voltage,  current flow depending on strength of magnetic field.

So, instead of using one thick disc if you use several thin discs separated and placed one above the other and rotate in a uniform perpendicular magnetic field, will it not improve the efficiency of the generator?

The explanations look  cranky,  but if you go on throwing arrows in the dark,  some arrow would reach the destination!

Quote from: Liberty on October 18, 2014, 08:50:52 AM
I would agree that a current is generated as a coil approaches a magnet and as it leaves a magnet.  (Standard generator).  Further, it is known that a wire (not a coil) passing over a continuous (unchanging) magnetic field produces a current in the wire, as long as motion is present between the wire and magnetic field.  However, in this case, you cannot use a loop of wire (coil), as the current will cancel, and there will be no output.    In the case of the magnetic field being constant in relation to the disk, the latter case is the known reason for current flow.  It is the wire (conductive path) passing through a constant magnetic field (acting as a wire) that will produce a current.  Mr. Faraday was actually correct about induction, and is the basis of operation of the Faraday (HP) generator and the standard generator.

Liberty

LibertyThe wire(conductive path) dosnt pass through a constant magnetic field,it remains in a constant position in relation to the magnetic field,as the brush on the outer rim never changes position-thus the line(potential wire)between the outer brush and center brush is stationary(fixed) just as the magnetic field is.There is no increase or decrease of magnetic field strength,nor is there a moving wire passing over that constant magnetic field(as the two brushes are in a fixed position)-so there is no induction taking place.In order to fully understand as to how the HPG work's,we need to know what exactly a magnetic field is. And in order to know what a magnetic field is,we need to know how the HPG work's-the two go together in understanding each other.

Quote from: Newton II on October 18, 2014, 09:09:58 AM
It may be for the reason that when you rotate the disc, the outer edge of the disc moves with higher velocity than inner edges of the disc to catch up with RPM. This may create some sort of 'gradient' or 'potential difference'  between  rim  and the centre making the electrons to flow.

In that case if you use a disc of very large diameter, it should produce a considerable gradient creating a higher voltage,  current flow depending on strength of magnetic field.

So, instead of using one thick disc if you use several thin discs separated and placed one above the other and rotate in a uniform perpendicular magnetic field, will it not improve the efficiency of the generator?

The explanations look  cranky,  but if you go on throwing arrows in the dark,  some arrow would reach the destination!

I agree with Newton II's explanation and think that there is merit in the "potential difference" theory (due to the difference in velocity from inside the disk, to outside, while immersed in a magnetic field, (to separate charge, preventing the charge from shorting out in the disk like an eddy current)). And in order for current to flow, it would have to form a conductive path to allow output of this generator to a load.  This may account for the other HP generators that Tinman was referring to.  For HP generators in general, it appears that the larger, the more it produces.  But as in magnet motors that operate on the gradient method, (magnet spiral style motor) the difference (gradient) is fairly small. 

Liberty

Quote from: tinman on October 18, 2014, 09:43:07 AM
LibertyThe wire(conductive path) dosnt pass through a constant magnetic field,it remains in a constant position in relation to the magnetic field,as the brush on the outer rim never changes position-thus the line(potential wire)between the outer brush and center brush is stationary(fixed) just as the magnetic field is.There is no increase or decrease of magnetic field strength,nor is there a moving wire passing over that constant magnetic field(as the two brushes are in a fixed position)-so there is no induction taking place.In order to fully understand as to how the HPG work's,we need to know what exactly a magnetic field is. And in order to know what a magnetic field is,we need to know how the HPG work's-the two go together in understanding each other.

The conductive path is constantly repositioning itself on a spinning disk (finding the path of least resistance) and is therefore in relative motion in respect to the magnetic field.  There is therefore constant movement as the conductive path is constantly repositioned on the surface of the disk while the disk is in motion, while in a constant magnetic field. 

Liberty

Probably one of the more interesting things about the homo polar motor is the fact that the ring magnet is able to spin with the disk and the disk still produces current. Now, is there any lenz braking happening while turning the disk with the ring magnet spinning with it while current is loaded from the disk? Is there resistance to turning the disk with the mag ring spinning with it? If there is, what is the wheel lenz braking against if the magnet spins with the disk?? If there is no lenz braking, and the faster we spin the wheel, the more current we get out without increasing drag, what does that mean to you?  One more thing. If there is lenz braking with using a disk, what can we replace the disk with to avoid it? ;)


Mags

Quote from: Liberty on October 18, 2014, 10:27:50 AM
The conductive path is constantly repositioning itself on a spinning disk (finding the path of least resistance) and is therefore in relative motion in respect to the magnetic field.  There is therefore constant movement as the conductive path is constantly repositioned on the surface of the disk while the disk is in motion, while in a constant magnetic field. 

Liberty

Liberty
I really do not think that this conductive path keeps jumping back up to reposition itself. This path between brushes would remain constant-no movement. That is like saying a light beam would bend if we spun a flash light around fast enough-just not going to happen.

Quote from: Magluvin on October 18, 2014, 02:35:27 PM
Probably one of the more interesting things about the homo polar motor is the fact that the ring magnet is able to spin with the disk and the disk still produces current. Now, is there any lenz braking happening while turning the disk with the ring magnet spinning with it while current is loaded from the disk? Is there resistance to turning the disk with the mag ring spinning with it? If there is, what is the wheel lenz braking against if the magnet spins with the disk?? If there is no lenz braking, and the faster we spin the wheel, the more current we get out without increasing drag, what does that mean to you?  One more thing. If there is lenz braking with using a disk, what can we replace the disk with to avoid it? ;)


Mags

Im guessing you mean a homopolar generator Mag's,not a homopolar motor.
So are saying there is a lenz force,and some are saying there is not. The only way to find answers is to build one i guess. As copper plate here is extremely expencive,i guess i will have to melt down some copper pipe,and make my own disk-say around 12 inches in diameter.Then to wind some very large coils for electromagnet's,as PM's that size would cost an arm and leg.

Quote from: Magluvin on October 18, 2014, 02:35:27 PM
Probably one of the more interesting things about the homo polar motor is the fact that the ring magnet is able to spin with the disk and the disk still produces current. Now, is there any lenz braking happening while turning the disk with the ring magnet spinning with it while current is loaded from the disk? Is there resistance to turning the disk with the mag ring spinning with it? If there is, what is the wheel lenz braking against if the magnet spins with the disk?? If there is no lenz braking, and the faster we spin the wheel, the more current we get out without increasing drag, what does that mean to you?  One more thing. If there is lenz braking with using a disk, what can we replace the disk with to avoid it? ;)


Mags

You should buy a copy of Tom Valone's Homopolar Handbook. On the cover of that book is a photo of a large industrial homopolar dynamo, that is used in industry for billet heating and other things where you need huge currents but not much voltage. The way it works is that it is spun up to speed by hydraulic or other motive power, with peripheral brushes retracted off the disc. Then when it is at speed, with huge flywheel energy storage in the rotating disk, the peripheral brushes are slammed down onto the periphery of the disc and huge power is drawn off as very high currents for a few seconds as the rotation slows.

But in the text of the Handbook, you will find copies of the original research by Tom, and also the DePalma-Tewari documents, and a lot of other great information about homopolar dynamos. Many of the questions and problems posed in this thread are fully answered and explained in the Homopolar Handbook.

One of the more interesting things in the Handbook is the description of Tom's Master's thesis experiment, where he actually put an LED voltmeter _on the disk_  rotating with it. Can you guess his result?

Quote from: tinman on October 18, 2014, 07:24:37 PM
Im guessing you mean a homopolar generator Mag's,not a homopolar motor.
So are saying there is a lenz force,and some are saying there is not. The only way to find answers is to build one i guess. As copper plate here is extremely expencive,i guess i will have to melt down some copper pipe,and make my own disk-say around 12 inches in diameter.Then to wind some very large coils for electromagnet's,as PM's that size would cost an arm and leg.

Copper is nice because of its low resistance, and resistance is what kills homopolar dynamos. After all, when your generator voltage is only one or two volts maximum, it doesn't take much resistance to cut the current to nothing, even if there is a _lot_ of power available. But you don't have to use copper, you can use aluminum, it will work almost as well.
But there are plenty of torque-rpm graphs already available in the DePalma-Tewari work.

Quote from: Newton II on October 17, 2014, 03:16:19 AM

When you subject a current carrying conductor to extreme repulsion, conductor itself will bend but electrons will not be ejected out.   Why?

Does it mean that electrons are tightly held to mass of the conductor?   If moving electrons are tightly held to the conductor, how they will move? 

And why they are called free electrons???  (when they cannot jump out of conductor subjected to repulsion?)

Can some 'genius' answer it?

Movement of a large number of electrons is responsible for producing a strong magnetic field in a coil or in a PM.   Magnetic field produced by an individual electron would be very less.  Hence even if you bring a very strong repelling pole near a coil,   force experienced by individual electron will be neglible and it will not be ejected out of the coil.

If you create a very strong density of magnetic flux combining several strong magnetic fileds and bring a coil near it,  then individual electrons may experince strong force and will be ejected out of coil.

Same thing would have happenned in Philadelphia experiment, where a person entering into strong magnetic field started  emitting blue flame.    All electrons in his body would have been ejected out and his body would have got positively charged!
 

Quote from: vineet_kiran on October 19, 2014, 02:50:56 AM

If you create a very strong density of magnetic flux combining several strong magnetic fileds and bring a coil near it,  then individual electrons may experince strong force and will be ejected out of coil.

That would lead to an interesting experiment.   Take a lengthy wire, keep one end  immersed inside a strong magnetic field having very high flux density  and connect the other end of the wire to earth.   Electrons will be  ejected out from the wire at magnetic end creating a positive potential which causes  flow of electrons from earth to that  end of the wire.  But when electrons come to that spot,  they will be ejected out from that spot again.   So, a perpetaul flow of electrons is maintained in the wire from earth to magnetic end resulting in perpetual electric current!!!

Quote from: Newton II on October 19, 2014, 05:55:31 AM

That would lead to an interesting experiment.   Take a lengthy wire, keep one end  immersed inside a strong magnetic field having very high flux density  and connect the other end of the wire to earth.   Electrons will be  ejected out from the wire at magnetic end creating a positive potential which causes  flow of electrons from earth to that  end of the wire.  But when electrons come to that spot,  they will be ejected out from that spot again.   So, a perpetaul flow of electrons is maintained in the wire from earth to magnetic end resulting in perpetual electric current!!!

Now wouldnt that be nice if it were true.

Quote from: Newton II on October 19, 2014, 05:55:31 AM

That would lead to an interesting experiment.   Take a lengthy wire, keep one end  immersed inside a strong magnetic field having very high flux density  and connect the other end of the wire to earth.   Electrons will be  ejected out from the wire at magnetic end creating a positive potential which causes  flow of electrons from earth to that  end of the wire.  But when electrons come to that spot,  they will be ejected out from that spot again.   So, a perpetaul flow of electrons is maintained in the wire from earth to magnetic end resulting in perpetual electric current!!!

You can do one thing.   Take a wire which extends from earth to outer space.  Connect a photosensitive plate on one end of the wire at outer space and connect  the other end of wire to earth.    Photons from sun  falling on photosensitive plate eject electrons out from the plate by photoelectric effect.    Hence there will be a perpetual flow of electrons from earth to outer space producing perpetual electric current in the wire because sun's life is infinite compared to our lifespan.

Quote from: tinman on October 18, 2014, 07:19:22 PM
Liberty
I really do not think that this conductive path keeps jumping back up to reposition itself. This path between brushes would remain constant-no movement. That is like saying a light beam would bend if we spun a flash light around fast enough-just not going to happen.

You could be right about that Tinman.  But I find that induction in some form is always involved on the disk to create electrical charge on the disk from the motion and magnetic field.  It's more of a matter of how that separation of charge is tapped.  On the Faraday generator, he used a magnet on the area of the disk where the brushes were located (not on the rest of the disk), but as soon as the electrical potential on the disk escaped the magnetic field, it acted like an eddy current, and dissipated as loss and heat on the disk.  Tesla solved this by using a magnetic field on the entire disk to keep the charge separated.  Enjoyed the discussion and hearing others views.

Liberty

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 19, 2014, 02:05:24 AM
Copper is nice because of its low resistance, and resistance is what kills homopolar dynamos. After all, when your generator voltage is only one or two volts maximum, it doesn't take much resistance to cut the current to nothing, even if there is a _lot_ of power available. But you don't have to use copper, you can use aluminum, it will work almost as well.
But there are plenty of torque-rpm graphs already available in the DePalma-Tewari work.

I wonder if anyone has tried to use an inverter circuit to step up the voltage output right off of the generator output?  Seems like it would cut low voltage loss to only inverter loss.

Liberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Quote :

"The other two describe how the fields "circulate" around their respective sources; the magnetic field "circulates" around electric currents and time varying electric fields in Ampère's law with Maxwell's addition, while the electric field "circulates" around time varying magnetic fields in Faraday's law."

"Maxwell's addition to Ampère's law is particularly important: it shows that not only does a changing magnetic field induce an electric field, but also a changing electric field induces a magnetic field."

While Maxwell's equations (along with the rest of classical electromagnetism) are extraordinarily successful at explaining and predicting a variety of phenomena, they are not exact, but approximations. In some special situations, they can be noticeably inaccurate. Examples include extremely strong fields (see Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian) and extremely short distances (see vacuum polarization).

   In a circular particle accelerator they use magnetic fields to keep the charged particles from hitting the walls.  They accelerate them using efields and direct them by using bfields.    In copper there are a prime number of protons in the nucleus shielded by a large number of electrons in lower energy shells. The valence shell is always looking for electron pairs.  The atom is electrically neutral with it's 29 electrons and protons but due to electron pairing wants to loose one electron or gain one electron.  This makes for a good conductor as it is easy for the atom to give up an electron to a neighbor. The neighbor has eight and the donar 6.  The donar has a hole and the neighbor an excess electron.   An external force will easily overcome the pairing bond and move the excess electron to the atom with a hole.  This makes the electrons move in one direction while the holes move in the other.  To overcome the electron pairing and create a free electron you need only to affect the electron quantum spin properties.  Unlike in ionization where you need to add energy to the electron in order to free it.  Since electrons are spinnng they have magnetic dipole moments.  These dipole moments allow the electron to be effected by both the electric and magnetic fields. 

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 19, 2014, 01:57:29 AM
You should buy a copy of Tom Valone's Homopolar Handbook. On the cover of that book is a photo of a large industrial homopolar dynamo, that is used in industry for billet heating and other things where you need huge currents but not much voltage. The way it works is that it is spun up to speed by hydraulic or other motive power, with peripheral brushes retracted off the disc. Then when it is at speed, with huge flywheel energy storage in the rotating disk, the peripheral brushes are slammed down onto the periphery of the disc and huge power is drawn off as very high currents for a few seconds as the rotation slows.

But in the text of the Handbook, you will find copies of the original research by Tom, and also the DePalma-Tewari documents, and a lot of other great information about homopolar dynamos. Many of the questions and problems posed in this thread are fully answered and explained in the Homopolar Handbook.

One of the more interesting things in the Handbook is the description of Tom's Master's thesis experiment, where he actually put an LED voltmeter _on the disk_  rotating with it. Can you guess his result?

Havnt bought the book yet.  But here is a review of his book, and the site it came from that seems to indulge in homopolar info.


" I have seen the "N" machine work. So have a lot of people. My only wish is that Bruce's dream for free energy for this planet does not die with him. If you are a tech type person please ignore the "naysayer" that debunks this info and experiment on your own.  Make your own conclusions by building your own "N" machine. I guarantee you won't be disappointed or be wasting your time. I also know Bruce Depalma will be smiling down on you...                                                                             Mike Galloway"




http://depalma.pair.com/valone.html


http://depalma.pair.com/index.html


Mags

Just do this.

http://richardemmanueljones.blogspot.co.uk/

A magnetic field expels electrons or a wire carrying electrons which is the bases for all motors and generators so what happens when we inject electrons into a magnetic field.

In a HPG current flows from centre to edge of the disk.  Hence if you arrange the coil as shown in the above diagram, current will not flow from end to end of the coil but it flows from side to side of the coil.

If you cut a round coil, make it straight and place it from centre to the edge, and arrange several such straight coils on the disc, you may get better results because current flows from one end of the coil at centre to the other end on the edge,  which is the natural direction of flow of current in HPG.

       This would have twirled alot of electric meters+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRV1e5_tB6Y

Quote from: vineet_kiran on October 27, 2014, 11:24:46 PM
In a HPG current flows from centre to edge of the disk.  Hence if you arrange the coil as shown in the above diagram, current will not flow from end to end of the coil but it flows from side to side of the coil.

If you cut a round coil, make it straight and place it from centre to the edge, and arrange several such straight coils on the disc, you may get better results because current flows from one end of the coil at centre to the other end on the edge,  which is the natural direction of flow of current in HPG.

I agree the electron should enter the center and exit the outer edge, the magnetic field should force (expel) the electron out.
Will it accelerate the electron  :-\ have not tested it yet.

This would be a more viable schematic.
The buck converter will lower the voltage so a higher voltage would be best.
In magnetron and radar research I read that current against the magnetic field gains energy whereas current moving with the field gives the field energy.
Anyway if anyone gives this a shot before I do give an update good or bad.

Quote from: tinman on October 16, 2014, 03:12:23 AM
There must be something that act's against the other something :-\. What i mean is-one magnetic field acts against the other,wether it be like poles ,or unlike poles. You just cant have nothing interacting with another nothing ::) So what dose this invisable force consist of?.

Quote:  They are of such low frequency/long wavelength that they cannot be called "light"
They are called what then?,and would a solar pannel see this low frequency/long wave length?.Wouldnt that be a hoot-throw some magnets on a solar pannel,and produce power without light :D

Magnetic field is massless hence a moving magnetic field will have massless momentum  which cannot be felt by inserting a solid object.  It can be felt by momentum produced by another massless magnetic field in opposite direction.  Hence when you bring two magnetic fields having momentum in opposite directions,  they collide and flyback (repulsion) just like two solid masses moving in opposite directions when collide,  move back due to impact.

What would be the difference between solid mass momentum and massless momentum?

Electrons produce a magnetic field, or should I say moving electrons produce a magnetic field that is repelled in a magnetic field.
If you take a spherical magnet and place it in the center of a toroidal speaker magnet it is pushed to the outer edge, the magnetic field is trying to expel the sphere magnet, I suspect the same is happening to the electron.

you guys know how to find the North and South poles really easy now ha ?    Use one magnet and put a string on it in the middle and then hold the string still in the air but make sure there is no metals around it to affect it ok and see how the magnet turns and then stops by the earths North and South poles affecting the one magnet so the one side of the magnet should be pointed to North and the other side of magnet should be pointing South which tells you the one that is pointing north is actually the South side and of course the other side has to be North that is attracting to the South right ?  YES !!!
Tom

Just for fun, let's have a look at the BLOCH WALL DRAMA that we get in the free energy scene because many amateur experimenters have been corrupted and steadfastly want to believe that there is a Bloch wall inside a magnet when there isn't one.

All of the drama is on the YouTube clip that Ramset pointed to just today....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA)

I decided to debate Chris Skyes on his YouTube clip because he is a subscriber to the crazy theory about the Bloch wall being in the center of a magnet.  Bedini, Howard Johnson, and many other luminaries in the free energy cottage industry pitch this nonsense to the masses and I think that is the root cause for this problem.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

User2718218
1 day ago

This is a totally retarded clip and you Chris Sykes should be ashamed for putting crap like this on YouTube.  Any astute 15-year-old kid that did well in grade 10 physics could refute this nonsense and prove it is not true by working with a test setup on a bench.  It would only take him 20 minutes.  Unbelievable.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
1 day ago

+User2718218 - You are welcome to your opinion. The same was said for the Wright brothers just before they were recorded in history as the first people to Fly. You are welcome to "refute this nonsense and prove it is not true by working with a test setup on a bench" if you wish.

User2718218
1 day ago

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes I refuted this nonsense 30 years ago on a bench.  Why don't you try doing the same thing?  Build it and make measurements on it and report your results.  Your results will refute this nonsense portrayed in the clip.  Forget about playing the "Wright Brothers" card here.  This is not advancing science.  This is not new knowledge.  This is pure junk and prone to corrupt the minds of people that don't know any better.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
1 day ago

+User2718218 - "I refuted this nonsense 30 years ago on a bench" - I guess you missed something? Like I have said, I know others with this technology, they also have it working. Your opinion is really not making any difference to me or them. Have a nice Day User2718218 ;O)  

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
23 hours ago (edited)

+User2718218 - From what I can see - https://www.youtube.com/user/User2718218/discussion (https://www.youtube.com/user/User2718218/discussion) - Getting paid for it are you? @ALL Please take note of these Activity's! It appears as if we're being harassed. Those experienced in this field will know what this means! Hahaha

User2718218
22 hours ago

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Put up some links to their data and I will have a look at it.  I am telling you with 100% certainty that the information in the video is junk.  The two parts of the secondary coil generate EMFs that will cancel each other out so the output from the secondary will be close to zero.  If people won't or don't master the basics of electronics and in this case especially magnetism then they are going to fail all the time.  Spreading this nonsense via a YouTube clip makes it that much worse.   From your comments I take it that you have never done an experiment like this and are relying on others.  You see?  That is an example right there of 'garbage out' creating 'garbage in' on your side.

User2718218
22 hours ago

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Hahaha indeed.  The only problem is that you are laughing at the wrong thing.  Put your logical thinking cap on.   Do you honestly and truly think that playing with a transformer with a nonsensical secondary coil configuration could possibly be a 'new discovery demonstrating free energy?'   Now seriously think about this:  We have been mass producing things with coils acting as transformers in them since the advent of mainstream radio in the 1920s.  So that's for the last 90 years.  If this was real, do you really think that your buddies 'discovered the secret of the transformer with the 'alternative secondary coil'' in 2014?   Get real.  I am no MIB.  I am just an ordinary person pointing out to you how utterly ridiculous the 'pitch' is and now utterly ridiculous the 'technology' is.  What is in the clip is pure junk and any astute 15-year-old with an interest in electronics would also clearly see this is the case.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
21 hours ago (edited)

+User2718218 - I already have several Videos that show this Technology working. One is Low Level Energy Gain. See my Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/SweetSQM/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/SweetSQM/videos) - My first demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw) - This video is NOT OU but shows the effect (Nearly 4 Years Ago) - And My First Low Level Excess Energy Device: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQgch4L5XY&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhQgch4L5XY&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw) From your comments, I think you're working for the Oil Companies? Bill Alek has also shown the very same technology, he is a qualified EE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddj85px00lM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddj85px00lM) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXno_7xXSZs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXno_7xXSZs) - I have shown this technology for many years. Bill had a little help, he mentioned the name in the video. This person gets paid to troll the net for ideas and then in secret Labs, very Highly Funded, they advance these technologies, and try to Patent and shelve the technologies, he then used my ideas to make his device work in these Labs, then gave the ideas to Bill because it cant be patented. I already have proven this to work and it is now up to you to do your bit, as it is up to everyone else. I suggest you seriously do some home work. Some basic Transformer Theory would be beneficial first! Maybe a read of: http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf (http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf) - Which contains very basic Transformer Theory. Then if you feel you have any science to dispute go and do it!

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
21 hours ago (edited)

+User2718218 - You know, simply, just the way you think, reading your words and how you phrase things, limits you to prehistoric mentality's! I am going to ask you a favour! Please for your own sake, open your mind and stop being close minded, open your mind to the future. Thinking like yours is the reason that Science can not advance! Please do it for yourself! Take nothing for granted, assume nothing, do the Experiment, like you said, 20 minutes for an astute 15 year old. You could do it in 10 then?

User2718218
19 hours ago (edited)

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Thanks for the links.  For your first clip:  All that I see is you are pumping AC into a strange transformer setup from a car audio amplifier and one of the coils is connected to a light bulb.  The shorted coils are not doing much beyond dissipating some AC power.  For your second clip:  There is no such thing as a Bloch wall in a standard bar magnet.  I know this will upset you but don't you want the truth?  You really have to think about this one hard.  I see you playing with a small home-brew transformer on your bench, sometimes lighting up a small bulb, and calling it "low-level OU."  I don't see any measurements.  All little transformers like that are lossy and there is no OU there.  Instead of the "oil companies" pitch, what if I have more knowledge and experience than you and I know what I am talking about?   Where is Bill Alek's super-duper free energy scooter?  Didn't happen.  I never heard it claimed that he is an EE but it could be true.  That doesn't necessarily mean that he is right.  That Bill Alek clip was discussed in detail on OU.com and it got a failing grade.  I looked at the pdf and when I got to the Bloch wall stuff I stopped.  In glancing through it it looks like a mixture of Bearden and transformer stuff, including your demo setup.  Where is Bearden's MEG that was promised to go into production over 10 years ago?  In your clip where you track the "moving Bloch wall" when you stack more and more magnets together, the fact is that you are not correctly interpreting what the magnetic viewing film is showing you.  To be fair, almost nobody in the free energy realm knows how to correctly interpret magnetic viewing film.  Here is the bottom line:  You have bought into a lot of misconceptions.  They build upon each other and reinforce each other until they hit some critical mass and you start to believe that you know what you are doing and you got it right.  Don't believe me?   Would you be up to a debate on OU.com starting with the magnets and the viewing film and the Bloch walls?  You will come out of the debate a winner if you stick to it and you will be better able to separate the truth out from fiction.

User2718218
19 hours ago

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Sadly, it's you that is stuck in the box.  Look, suppose you debate the magnet/Bloch wall/viewing film with me and you see it my way.  This is just a thought experiment, bear with me.   Then we debate one of your transformer clips and you see it my way again.   Then were are you?  Do you see where I am going?  Maybe it will go the other way and I will be the one that changes.  However, it's very doubtful because you believe that there is a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet, probably because you read that from Tom Bearden, and most or all of your free energy peers agree with you.   Well, your world will be shaken a bit when you realize that there is no Bloch wall in a bar magnet in any way, shape, or form.  That could be your first step forward in the right direction.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
18 hours ago (edited)

+User2718218 - Your current debate is nothing to do with the actual Topic we have been discussing and avoids all of the fore mentioned debated issues? You're wasting my time, time spend best helping others move ahead. Experiment is TRUTH and you refuse to Experiment! You hide behind "User2718218" username and wont provide any substantial evidence to the contrary. All you do is verbally refute what's plainly in-front of you with no evidence to back your verbal mess up! I have provided proof, references, experiments, Videos showing working devices, Technical Proof's, Technical Explanations with scientifically provable evidence. Noise Cancellation, Irrefutable to any scientist. Working on the very same principals! You will however, still refute it because that's your JOB!!! Paid disinformationalist and time waster! Oil Company Troll!!!

User2718218
17 hours ago (edited)

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Spare me the oil stuff.  You have to cope with this fact:  You are dealing with a normal rational human being.  That's it and that's all.  It sounds to me like it's a crutch with you, somebody disagrees with you and you play the "big oil" card.  That way you don't have to actually debate with people that don't share your view.  It's a cop out.  Let me put it this way:  If you had one experiment or concept that you think clearly demonstrates what you are trying to get across, please point me to it and I will comment.  For other things:  You are asking me for evidence and I am not claiming anything.  If you state that you have a "slightly over unity" transformer setup, it's you that needs to provide clear evidence.  You are probably aware that measurement error often causes these erroneous conclusions, any chance that will come up with you?  Here is a hard fact for you that you may find hard to digest:  Easily 95% or more of free energy experimenters that play with coils all the time in reality have almost no clue how inductors actually work.  There is a good chance that you are in that 95% group also.  I tell you this from five years worth of observation.   Anyway, if you give me a pointer to your "big claim" I will have a look at it and let you know what I think.   Apart from that, there are no bloody Bloch walls inside a standard bar magnet.  If you don't understand that you are crippled.  Please just do the research or like I stated I can debate that with you on OU.com, I am MileHigh on that forum.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
14 hours ago

+User2718218 - Do the experiment or don't do the experiment - I don't care. All day we have debated and like OU.com we are no further ahead.

User2718218
8 hours ago

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Whatever you say is fine with me.  Just bear in mind if you "teach" people stuff like the erroneous business about Bloch walls then you just perpetuate ignorance.  Here is what a "magnet" with a Bloch wall down the center looks like:  [S---N][N---S].   Now, does that look like a proper magnet to you?   No!  It looks like two separate magnets in opposition "glued into one."  A "magnet with a Bloch wall down the center" is totally nonsensical and will defeat itself.  You have to contemplate this and THINK.  You have an entire separate clip about Bloch walls and it is completely wrong and you don't understand what you are looking at with the magnetic viewing film.  Again, you have to really THINK.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
3 hours ago

+User2718218 - This is all your own opinion!

User2718218
2 hours ago

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Chris, a magnet has all of the magnetic domains within it ALIGNED IN THE SAME DIRECTION.  By definition a Bloch wall forms the boundary between magnetic domains that are ALIGNED IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.   This is a magnet:  [S>>>>>>N].   All of the magnetic domains are aligned in the same direction and the is no Bloch wall.   This is a self-conflicting piece of ferrous metal with a Bloch wall between two magnetic domains that are in the opposite direction:   [S>>>>>>|<<<<<<S].   That is a device with a Bloch wall were there is a nonsensical arrangement of magnetic domains that produce their respective magnetic fields that will CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.  Now I am giving you the real deal, the truth.  Listen, do some Google searching and read up and spend a few days researching and informing yourself.  Your model for the "magnet with a Bloch wall down the center" will fall apart.  Trust me, get it together on your end.  Assuming you inform yourself and get it, then you will need to take down the bad clips and/or issue retractions.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
1 hour ago

+User2718218 - Your Scientific Evidence presented is amazing! NOT!!! Google Howard Johnson Magnetic Field (Qualified Engineer) as well as a million other Scientific Papers - You're nothing but verbal DIAREA - Go and get another Job! Experimental EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTABLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH RUBBISH YOU TALK. You dispute EXPERIMENT You're a fool! 

User2718218
7 seconds ago

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Okay Chris, let's do a thought experiment together.  We have a standard bar magnet.  I am going to enter the south end of the bar magnet and travel through the magnet and emerge from the north end.  Sort of like the old movie Fantastic Voyage.

Before I enter the south end of the magnet I note that there is a magnetic field in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.  1/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field.  1/2 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. I look around and I do not see any Bloch wall showing a boundary layer between magnetic domains and their associated magnetic fields that are in a different direction.  3/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. When I emerge from the north end of the magnet I note the magnetic field is still the same; it is still in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.

Now, that's what it's like when you travel through a magnet.  Please now give me your version of when you travel through a magnet that supposedly has a Bloch wall at the center.

www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org) - Chris Sykes
23 minutes ago (edited)

+User2718218 - Another post and we still are no further ahead! Lets do a REAL EXPERIMENT! Measure with SCIENTIFICIALLY proven to work with WELL KNOWN SCIENCE, a Hall Effect Probe same as Howard Johnson used, and really get somewhere. Measure the Magnet as Howard did, Map the Field Lines, as Howard Did! Or maybe a PEER REVIEWED Scientifically Proven: http://hamiltoninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WIN_HAM-5.pdf (http://hamiltoninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WIN_HAM-5.pdf) - I quote: "The photon experiences a spin relaxation (polarization) due to the magnetic field and the  polarization provided by the two-¼ wave glass panes and ferrofluid that we suspect effectively increases the reflectance of the interaction of the photons and the ferromagnetic nanoparticles suspended at the paramagnetic Bloch wall" - Really, SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT LYING TO SUIT YOUR OPINION!!!

User2718218
6 seconds ago

+www.hyiq.org - Chris Sykes Chris, for starters you are deflecting my question.  I asked you to travel through the magnet just like I did and what's implicit is that you have to explain the rationale and the existence of the Bloch wall as you travel through it.   Are you up to the challenge?

The pdf mentions the ferrofluid viewer and offers up an esoteric explanation.  Starting at this posting on OU.com you get the REAL explanation for how the ferrofluid viewer works:  http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg430816/#msg430816 (http://overunity.com/14767/ultimate-proof-of-magnetic-vortex-free-book-and-videos/msg430816/#msg430816)

Going back to the issue at hand, if you tell me that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a magnet, then do a "magnet fly through" just like I did.  Come on, you want to stick to your guns, then put your money where your mouth is.  Explain the architecture of a magnet to me by flying through it using your OWN WORDS, don't point to a pdf.

Image compliments of Poynt99.

Look at the text and compare it to the image:

Before I enter the south end of the magnet I note that there is a magnetic field in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.  1/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field.  1/2 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. I look around and I do not see any Bloch wall showing a boundary layer between magnetic domains and their associated magnetic fields that are in a different direction.  3/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. When I emerge from the north end of the magnet I note the magnetic field is still the same; it is still in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs

In the above clip Chris Sykes thinks he is seeing Bloch walls with his magnetic viewing film.   The attached three images explain exactly what he is seeing, and it certainly is not a Bloch wall.

Quote from: MileHigh on January 02, 2015, 07:13:13 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs

In the above clip Chris Sykes thinks he is seeing Bloch walls with his magnetic viewing film.   The attached three images explain exactly what he is seeing, and it certainly is not a Bloch wall.

MileHigh,

Hard Scientific Data that is PEER Reviewed with many other experiments to back up the HARD DATA is ONLY REFUTED BY FOOLS! Lets not forget, PROFESSIONALS doing Professional Experiments! Especially when more simple experiments that are very easily replicated also prove the same HARD DATA!

You're using ideas and diagrams from a 100 year old concept! It is time you update your theories!

PEER REVIEWED: http://hamiltoninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WIN_HAM-5.pdf

Don't embarrass Science and stop embarrassing yourself! Learn what's really real instead of what you read in out-dated, incorrect, text books!

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes

Quote from: MileHigh on January 02, 2015, 06:28:44 PM
Image compliments of Poynt99.

Look at the text and compare it to the image:

Before I enter the south end of the magnet I note that there is a magnetic field in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.  1/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field.  1/2 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. I look around and I do not see any Bloch wall showing a boundary layer between magnetic domains and their associated magnetic fields that are in a different direction.  3/4 way through the magnet the magnetic field is still the same and when I look all around me I see magnetic domains all oriented in the same direction as the magnetic field. When I emerge from the south end of the magnet I note the magnetic field is still the same; it is still in a direction that starts from behind me and goes forward in the same direction I am moving in.

OK ,im lost.
How or why dose the field turn around when you do,and exit where you entered?.

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 02, 2015, 08:05:19 PM
MileHigh,

Hard Scientific Data that is PEER Reviewed with many other experiments to back up the HARD DATA is ONLY REFUTED BY FOOLS! Lets not forget, PROFESSIONALS doing Professional Experiments! Especially when more simple experiments that are very easily replicated also prove the same HARD DATA!

You're using ideas and diagrams from a 100 year old concept! It is time you update your theories!

PEER REVIEWED: http://hamiltoninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WIN_HAM-5.pdf

Don't embarrass Science and stop embarrassing yourself! Learn what's really real instead of what you read in out-dated, incorrect, text books!

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes

Christ, these people have confused magnitude for direction.  Optical illusion "leads out" massive delusion.

Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2015, 08:05:57 PM
OK ,im lost.
How or why dose the field turn around when you do,and exit where you entered?.

I am not quite sure I follow you.  When I "travel" through the magnet, my nose is always pointed in the same direction.  I start from just outside the south end of the magnet, and I emerge just outside the north end of the magnet.   The magnetic field is always pointing in the same direction as my nose the whole time.

Quote from: MarkE on January 02, 2015, 08:12:47 PM
Christ, these people have confused magnitude for direction.  Optical illusion "leads out" massive delusion.

MarkE,

massive delusion? Of Blind Incompetence?

See, I provided references and HARD Data, you have nothing of the sort. And what's more cant!

massive delusion, I see, side by side with Blind Incompetence.

OU.com is full of Keyboard Junkies that simply are incompetent to learn anything new. No wonder you people have nothing running! You people need to get off your LAZY arses and do some work! with Open Minds! Five senses connected to a working brain will be the only thing that progress the common good!

Bill Alek is right on target!!!! You people shot him down even after providing Scientific Evidence! How many times are you going to let "IT" get away from you before you open your minds!

Or is it that, only your fingers get a workout?

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 02, 2015, 08:34:06 PM
MarkE,

massive delusion? Of Blind Incompetence?

See, I provided references and HARD Data, you have nothing of the sort. And what's more cant!

Kindly look at your supplied data.  Look carefully.  See what those pretty light patterns really mean.  If your hypothesis is as in the graphic you posted a couple of posts back, that the field of a dipole magnet really goes from one end to the center instead of all the way around the magnet, then there are plenty of experiments that could be performed to demonstrate such behavior by simply using a long dipole.  The problem is that is not what happens when we investigate long dipoles.

Quote

massive delusion, I see, side by side with Blind Incompetence.

OU.com is full of Keyboard Junkies that simply are incompetent to learn anything new. No wonder you people have nothing running! You people need to get off your LAZY arses and do some work! with Open Minds! Five senses connected to a working brain will be the only thing that progress the common good!

Data:  Reliable data tells all.  Your data does not actually support your conclusions.  I don't see value hurling insults at you for your mistake.  I see value in encouraging you to look at your data and understand what it really means.

Quote

Bill Alek is right on target!!!! You people shot him down even after providing Scientific Evidence! How many times are you going to let "IT" get away from you before you open your minds!

I am sorry but Bill Alek has utterly and totally failed to support his extraordinary propositions.  If a day should come that he can actually support his claims with reliable data, then I will think better of his claims.

Quote

Or is it that, only your fingers get a workout?

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes

It is good that you abhor ignorance.  Don't succumb to it because doing so lets you believe what you would like as opposed to finding out what is true.  That cuts all ways.

Quote from: MileHigh on January 02, 2015, 08:27:03 PM
I am not quite sure I follow you.  When I "travel" through the magnet, my nose is always pointed in the same direction.  I start from just outside the south end of the magnet, and I emerge just outside the north end of the magnet.   The magnetic field is always pointing in the same direction as my nose the whole time.

Ah i see,you did a typo.
Quote your post:-before i enter the south end--When i emerge from the south end.
Im guessing that should have been-when i emerge from the north end.
I did highlite it in red in my reply.

Chris:

I read through the pdf.  The first issue is your statement that it is "peer reviewed."  To me that means it's a paper that is published in an academic journal.  My instincts are telling me that "peer reviewed" for you means people that you know of in the realm of free energy and alternative stuff.  They are usually not university educated from my experience and sometimes their "academic credentials" come from those "mills" that crank out a doctorate that you can hang on your wall for a price.

So the paper is not peer reviewed by any stretch of the imagination.

When I read the paper I can't be sure if the language and terminology is legit or not because I am out or my realm.  However, it doesn't strike me as being 100% legit but it is just a feeling.

I explained what you were seeing in the magnetic viewing film a few postings back.   You still cannot or will not do a "drive through" of a magnet like I did and explain the mechanics of your alleged Bloch wall at the center of a magnet.   Why is that?   Why can't you explain in real terms what the alleged Bloch wall is?

On the other hand, the model for a magnet with no Bloch wall is the accepted model.   If you cut a series of tiny slits into a bar magnet to locate the alleged Bloch wall the only thing that you will find with a Hall sensor is a continuous unidirectional magnetic field just like I described.  The iron filings do not lie, they orient themselves in line with the external magnetic field.  The magnetic field model with no Bloch wall makes perfect sense.

I can't explain the specific optical effects in the pdf.  However, those effects are related to reflection and refraction of light off of magnetically polarized strings of fine particles.  If I had a ferrofluid viewer myself I could play with it and get a feel for it.  I wonder if the pictures are just "cherry picked" pictures that show the desired optical effects.  Just like the vast majority of people that play with magnetic viewing film don't understand what it is showing them or how to use it, I can only suspect that some people that play with ferrofluid viewers suffer the same issues.

The magnetic field around a bar magnet is the same as they have been saying it is like since the 19th century.

MileHigh

Quote from: MarkE on January 02, 2015, 08:45:45 PM
Kindly look at your supplied data.  Look carefully.  See what those pretty light patterns really mean.  If your hypothesis is as in the graphic you posted a couple of posts back, that the field of a dipole magnet really goes from one end to the center instead of all the way around the magnet, then there are plenty of experiments that could be performed to demonstrate such behavior by simply using a long dipole.  The problem is that is not what happens when we investigate long dipoles.Data:  Reliable data tells all.  Your data does not actually support your conclusions.  I don't see value hurling insults at you for your mistake.  I see value in encouraging you to look at your data and understand what it really means.I am sorry but Bill Alek has utterly and totally failed to support his extraordinary propositions.  If a day should come that he can actually support his claims with reliable data, then I will think better of his claims.It is good that you abhor ignorance.  Don't succumb to it because doing so lets you believe what you would like as opposed to finding out what is true.  That cuts all ways.

MarkE,

So you're saying Howard Johnson's work is fake and Hall Probes don't work?

Please give me a break! Blind Following the Blind I have seen but this is amazing! A whole new level!

Wow, good luck, I know you are really going to need it! How many hours have you spent on OU.com and what have you learned? Learned nothing?

You people are Doomed!

With regrets and a saddened disrespect for Ignorance

Chris Sykes

Quote from: tinman on January 02, 2015, 08:46:43 PM
Ah i see,you did a typo.
Quote your post:-before i enter the south end--When i emerge from the south end.
Im guessing that should have been-when i emerge from the north end.
I did highlite it in red in my reply.

Thanks Brad, I corrected my text.  When I try to proofread my own text within 20 minutes of composing it it is very difficult to do because my brain is one step ahead of what I (think) I am reading.

QMOGEN - community
I am the man of this work http://blog.hasslberger.com/2011/12/magnetic_vortex_-_experimental.html
MAGNETIC VORTEX PROOF.

I invite you to our community of QMOGEN (very recente, since last year) (filtered news, >600members)
https://plus.google.com/communities/113932584951030663517/stream/3e863c2d-3e9a-43ea-9c22-1d95ffa75419

I will bring it back to that bloody green magnetic viewing film.  Chris is just one of many that is tricked up by it.   He believes that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a magnet, and then he sees a lighter green line on his viewing film just where he expects the Bloch wall should be, and he says, "Voila!  There is the Bloch wall!"

This is a very dangerous thing and a few postings back you see my graphic explaining what he is actually seeing with the magnetic viewing film.

Chris is not even asking himself precisely why the alleged Bloch wall should cause that effect on the viewing film.  Going further than that, he is not even asking himself what light areas and dark areas on the viewing film actually mean.

You trip yourself up enough and you can believe in some kind of "new explanation" or "new reality" for what is going on.  However, often these "new realities" often only work for one cherry-picked test and don't work for other tests.

For Chris, this phenomenon has extended to his transformer tests.  He claims one of his transformer tests is "slightly over unity" but all that I see is a strange funky and lossy transformer.  Proper measurements would confirm that the transformer setup is lossy.

@Mark E

Quote
Look carefully.  See what those pretty light patterns really mean.  If your
hypothesis is as in the graphic you posted a couple of posts back, that the
field of a dipole magnet really goes from one end to the center instead of all
the way around the magnet, then there are plenty of experiments that could be
performed to demonstrate such behavior by simply using a long dipole.  The
problem is that is not what happens when we investigate long dipoles.

I know I should just walk away from this one but it would seem to me the magnetic field is just another dipole field as shown below. As such the near field does not necessarily need to mirror the far field which becomes more and more spherical the further it reaches outward. If the magnetic field is a reflection of the electric field mathmatically then why wouldn't we see it as such conceptually?. I find it hard to believe we would model all our dipole fields in a similar manner and then say well no not this one the magnetic field is different, is it?.
I would also agree with milehigh's analogy of moving through a magnet and seeing a multitude of smaller parallel magnetic fields however a magnet is not an external magnetic field any more than an electric dipole is an external electric field.
AC

Quote from: MileHigh on January 02, 2015, 09:25:01 PM
I will bring it back to that bloody green magnetic viewing film.  Chris is just one of many that is tricked up by it.   He believes that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a magnet, and then he sees a lighter green line on his viewing film just where he expects the Bloch wall should be, and he says, "Voila!  There is the Bloch wall!"

This is a very dangerous thing and a few postings back you see my graphic explaining what he is actually seeing with the magnetic viewing film.

Chris is not even asking himself precisely why the alleged Bloch wall should cause that effect on the viewing film.  Going further than that, he is not even asking himself what light areas and dark areas on the viewing film actually mean.

You trip yourself up enough and you can believe in some kind of "new explanation" or "new reality" for what is going on.  However, often these "new realities" often only work for one cherry-picked test and don't work for other tests.

For Chris, this phenomenon has extended to his transformer tests.  He claims one of his transformer tests is "slightly over unity" but all that I see is a strange funky and lossy transformer.  Proper measurements would confirm that the transformer setup is lossy.

MH:

Possibly Chris (and his peers) have a mental Bloch?  Or..."All in all...it's just another Bloch in the wall."  Pink Floyd.  (However, when viewed through the magnetic viewing film Pink Floyd actually looks green)

Sorry, I could not help myself.

Bill

Quote from: allcanadian on January 02, 2015, 09:32:47 PM
@Mark E
I know I should just walk away from this one but it would seem to me the magnetic field is just another dipole field as shown below. As such the near field does not necessarily need to mirror the far field which becomes more and more spherical the further it reaches outward. If the magnetic field is a reflection of the electric field mathmatically then why wouldn't we see it as such conceptually?. I find it hard to believe we would model all our dipole fields in a similar manner and then say well no not this one the magnetic field is different, is it?.
I would also agree with milehigh's analogy of moving through a magnet and seeing a multitude of smaller parallel magnetic fields however a magnet is not an external magnetic field any more than an electric dipole is an external electric field.
AC

If the conventional view is correct then the longer the dipole, the more the magnetic field aligns parallel to the solenoid central axis near the middle of the dipole.  If the hypothesized view were correct then near the middle of the dipole the field would curl developing what is at the exact center field lines that are only perpendicular to the dipole.  Such a curl would not be difficult to demonstrate.

Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 02, 2015, 11:32:46 PM
MH:

Possibly Chris (and his peers) have a mental Bloch?  Or..."All in all...it's just another Bloch in the wall."  Pink Floyd.  (However, when viewed through the magnetic viewing film Pink Floyd actually looks green)

Sorry, I could not help myself.

Bill

Whatever happened to Fay Wray?

Quote from: MileHigh on January 02, 2015, 09:03:44 PM
Chris:

I read through the pdf.  The first issue is your statement that it is "peer reviewed."  To me that means it's a paper that is published in an academic journal.  My instincts are telling me that "peer reviewed" for you means people that you know of in the realm of free energy and alternative stuff.  They are usually not university educated from my experience and sometimes their "academic credentials" come from those "mills" that crank out a doctorate that you can hang on your wall for a price.

So the paper is not peer reviewed by any stretch of the imagination.

When I read the paper I can't be sure if the language and terminology is legit or not because I am out or my realm.  However, it doesn't strike me as being 100% legit but it is just a feeling.

I explained what you were seeing in the magnetic viewing film a few postings back.   You still cannot or will not do a "drive through" of a magnet like I did and explain the mechanics of your alleged Bloch wall at the center of a magnet.   Why is that?   Why can't you explain in real terms what the alleged Bloch wall is?

On the other hand, the model for a magnet with no Bloch wall is the accepted model.   If you cut a series of tiny slits into a bar magnet to locate the alleged Bloch wall the only thing that you will find with a Hall sensor is a continuous unidirectional magnetic field just like I described.  The iron filings do not lie, they orient themselves in line with the external magnetic field.  The magnetic field model with no Bloch wall makes perfect sense.

I can't explain the specific optical effects in the pdf.  However, those effects are related to reflection and refraction of light off of magnetically polarized strings of fine particles.  If I had a ferrofluid viewer myself I could play with it and get a feel for it.  I wonder if the pictures are just "cherry picked" pictures that show the desired optical effects.  Just like the vast majority of people that play with magnetic viewing film don't understand what it is showing them or how to use it, I can only suspect that some people that play with ferrofluid viewers suffer the same issues.

The magnetic field around a bar magnet is the same as they have been saying it is like since the 19th century.

MileHigh

MileHigh,

I was not going to get into this debate simply because for me, I have seen more evidence to support what I have shown regarding Bloch Walls and Magnetic Fields than most all other people will see in their entire lives!

Then I thought, well, if I can help just one person, then I will. It turns our I already have. So I will try to help more simply because if people are wanting to learn, make devices work on these principals and realise that the truth will always prevail, then I will try. Even though debating for the true for my self seems pointless, its not about me.

The Bloch Wall Exists!

1: One can Feel it!
2: One can See it!
3: One can Measure it!

Really, if one can do this much with the Bloch Wall, then debating weather it exists is the same as debating weather we breath Air! I have shown in my experiments that it Exists! Howard Johnson has shown in his experiments that it Exists! Richard E. Cadle has shown in his experiments that it Exists! Researchers for over a Hundred Years have shown that it exists!

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWOKefrcpAg

Experiments with the Coriolis Effect can also prove that there is a Bloch Wall.

Ref: "In physics, the "Coriolis Effect" is a deflection of moving objects when the motion is described relative to a rotating reference frame. In a reference frame with clockwise rotation, the deflection is to the left of the motion of the object; in one with counter-clockwise rotation, the deflection is to the right."

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MS3FM7bYas

The "Coriolis Effect" can be minipulated to actually show results in reverse. I can also provide experiment to show this.

The "Coriolis Effect" should be enough for most to prove that the Bloch Wall Exists! The "Coriolis Effect" dominates much of our weather systems! Cyclones actually turn in different directions depending on which side of the Equator they sit!

Really debating the "Coriolis Effect" it also to debate the "Bloch Wall" - Its a mute argument. It is there! It cant be denied! Too much evidence supports the "Bloch Wall"!

I hope your Imaginary argument of traveling through a Magnet is now disposed! If not then try doing an Imaginary "Coriolis Effect" maybe you will get the same result? Really you are arguing against so much evidence that youre wasting yours and Everyone elses Time!

Magnets are Real, the "Coriolis Effect" is real and I can provide an experiment to prove that its Magnetic in Nature, and the "Bloch Wall" is Real! None of this is going to go away! Facts are always with us, lies are forgotten.

Regards, and overly frustrated,

Chris Sykes

P.S: Use the Right Hand Rule on this Picture to see what's going on!

Thought I would add a few more speculations, I have mapped many magnets using an Arduino/labview setup and a hall sensor probe as well as an array. The greatest field change is not actually from pole face to pole face but from 1/2 span(field middle point if you will) up to the edge of the pole face on a 1" Dia x 1/2" N42 neo magnet. Which was unexpected, pole face to pole face was less than the two measures from pole face to center.


I would agree with Milehigh that the bloch wall is poor terminology, Wesley Gary's neutral center doesn't quite cut it in my opinion however I would have no problem labeling the field change from pole face to mid-point as flux leakage. Now if my flux mapping is correct and the greatest field change per unit length is from magnet pole to magnet center or mid-point then it would seem to me the turning force of the field might be a function of the combined leakage of each individual dipole moment which constitutes the whole which I would consider as flux leakage.


What I do know as a fact is that the field does turn towards the mid-point in the near field, the how and why has yet to be determined.


AC

Quote from: MarkE on January 02, 2015, 08:12:47 PM
Christ, these people have confused magnitude for direction.  Optical illusion "leads out" massive delusion.

Looks like they aren't the only ones doing that. Funny how iron filings don't show that pinch at the waist, isn't it.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 12:24:55 AM
Looks like they aren't the only ones doing that. Funny how iron filings don't show that pinch at the waist, isn't it.

A couple of cool video's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8llkHQtaOlg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhytm8WYif0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-M07N4a6-Y

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 02, 2015, 11:58:52 PM
I can also provide experiment to show this.

EXPERIMENT: "Coriolis Effect"

1: Replicate the "Coriolis Effect" expreriment in the above Video and record your Direction of Spin!
2: Place a LARGE Magnet under your Funnel with a reasonable Gap under the Spout so as to not impede the flow of water but not too far so the Field of the Magnet is too far away.
3: Replicate the "Coriolis Effect" experiment with the control Magnet under your Funnel.
4: Flip your Magnet over and Replicate again.

Result:
You will see the Direction of the "Coriolis Effect" change depending on the Polarity of the Magnet to the Polarity you are on the Earth.

The Bloch Wall Exists!

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 12:24:55 AM
Looks like they aren't the only ones doing that. Funny how iron filings don't show that pinch at the waist, isn't it.

Iron Filings are a VERY Bad control and should not be used! They only are used by amateurs that simply don't know any better!

Reason: it's the same as two wires carrying current in the opposing directions can not lay parallel together! The Spins repel each other. As a result they are repelled from each other! This means the take an alternate path. That's why Iron Filings are So Much Denser on the Poles that in the centre of the Magnet!

Quote from: MarkE on January 02, 2015, 11:57:12 PM
Whatever happened to Fay Wray?

I think King Kong took her out...but it was an accident.

Bill

Chris:

QuoteExperiments with the Coriolis Effect can also prove that there is a Bloch Wall.

QuoteThe "Coriolis Effect" should be enough for most to prove that the Bloch Wall Exists!

Okay for starters, how can the existence of the Coriolis Effect prove there is a Bloch Wall?  They are two separate things with no relation to each other.  I actually do realize where it is coming from, because in your other clip they show the "curling (magnetic?) field" inside a bar magnet and so curling stuff inside a magnet equals the curling Coriolis Effect... or does it?  Who says there has to be any relationship at all?  More importantly, there are no curly magnetic fields inside the magnet.

The clip where the guy crosses the equator to demonstrate the draining water changing directions is just for show for tourists to make a bit of money.  My analog computer in my brain is telling me that it is not true because the forces at play are so minimal that they will be less than the random motion of the water molecules and currents from pouring the water into the drainage bowl in the first place.  It just a variation on slight of hand to amuse the tourists.  Yes of course the Coriolis Effect is real, but you have to be more than a few feet from the equator for it to take effect.  The important lesson there is to understand proportion and when things are significant and when they are insignificant.

QuoteI hope your Imaginary argument of traveling through a Magnet is now disposed!

The challenge is still there for you.  My "Fantastic Voyage" (no Raquel Welch dammit) through the magnet has been described.  We did not encounter a Bloch Wall or a heart valve.  So I challenge you to do the same thing.

You cannot forget that "Bloch Wall" means there is a discontinuity in the magnetic field directions inside a piece of metal or a magnet.  There is a change in the direction of a magnetic field when you pass through a Bloch wall by definition.

So I would love to see you do your own "Fantastic Voyage" through your version of a magnet.

You note that "my version" of a magnet is simple and clean.  Everybody is pointed in the same direction, end of story.  Nature usually tends to favour the simple.

With respect to your evidence for the Bloch Wall.  I have already dealt with the magnetic viewing film in another posting.  I also saw in your clip where your metal piece with the pointed end "jumps" past what you believe is the Bloch Wall.  You state that this is an indication of the presence of the Bloch Wall.  But that's not what is actually happening.  The metal piece is just jumping to a place with the lowest magnetic potential energy.  That happens to be on either side of what you are calling the Bloch Wall in your particular clip.  In other words, it's simple magnetic attraction causing the jump, not the alleged Bloch Wall.

Anyway, if you can write up the magnet fly-through I am sure we would be interested to read it.  Also, please give me any other evidence that you can offer up that you believe confirms the existence of the Bloch Wall and we can look at it and debate it.

Thanks,

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 02:51:15 AM
Okay for starters, how can the existence of the Coriolis Effect prove there is a Bloch Wall?  They are two separate things with no relation to each other.

MileHigh,

Yes different Effects entirely! But Look at EVIDENCE:

No Hurricane has ever passed across the Equator! Ever!

Water under controlled Conditions turns in Different Directions each Side of the Equator!

I have given you an Experiment that can prove that the Direction of the water turning can be changed with Magnetic Fields!

Spin is Why Iron Filings are a TERRIBLE Control and look at the Spin in the Coriolis Effect, Same with the Equator and Hurricanes Never crossing it!

This is just one more small piece to the BIG OVERALL Picture! Evidence mounts and its all got Experiment to back it up!

I am not ALWAYS Right, its not what I am saying, but when Facts are Facts, its only a fools game to deny them!

See the attached Pictures for more information:

Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 02:51:15 AM
You note that "my version" of a magnet is simple and clean.  Everybody is pointed in the same direction, end of story.  Nature usually tends to favour the simple.

MileHigh,

Your opinion does not make for scientific proof by any means! In-fact quite the opposite! "Nature usually tends to favour the simple." Yes it does, but your "theory" accounts for no effects in Nature, Galactic Plane? Why is there one and why not all Planets just stacked end on end like a bunch of Paper Clips hanging from a Magnet?

You're missing most all of the stuff I have provided Proof's for. Really, Why s Gravity 3% less at the Equator?

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVntSA-qoQ

The Equator has been with us through out History! Why do we have an Equator for Earth but Not for a Magnet? This is non sense! A Magnet has an Equator EXACTLY the same as the Earth does! The Equator is evident on every Planet that has a Magnetic Field! I have provided MANY Experiments and a mountain of Hard Scientific Data with references! Your too blind to see for the Trees in your Theory! Still I am not trying to convince you, I am providing some LOGIC for others reading. Some hard DATA for people to think about, real facts that can be backed up with simple experiments!

There is a MILLION Things you're missing because of your "Theory" - You have not a single bit of Scientific Evidence! You're missing Nature! Its just YOU on an Imaginary ride through your Magnet and YOU decide where your destination is!

You're Lost, really lost!

I hope you find it! I really do!

Chris Sykes - www.hyiq.org

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 05:38:29 AM
MileHigh,

Your opinion does not make for scientific proof by any means! In-fact quite the opposite! "Nature usually tends to favour the simple." Yes it does, but your "theory" accounts for no effects in Nature, Galactic Plane? Why is there one and why not all Planets just stacked end on end like a bunch of Paper Clips hanging from a Magnet?

You're missing most all of the stuff I have provided Proof's for. Really, Why s Gravity 3% less at the Equator?

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVntSA-qoQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVntSA-qoQ)

The Equator has been with us through out History! Why do we have an Equator for Earth but Not for a Magnet? This is non sense! A Magnet has an Equator EXACTLY the same as the Earth does! The Equator is evident on every Planet that has a Magnetic Field! I have provided MANY Experiments and a mountain of Hard Scientific Data with references! Your too blind to see for the Trees in your Theory! Still I am not trying to convince you, I am providing some LOGIC for others reading. Some hard DATA for people to think about, real facts that can be backed up with simple experiments!

There is a MILLION Things you're missing because of your "Theory" - You have not a single bit of Scientific Evidence! You're missing Nature! Its just YOU on an Imaginary ride through your Magnet and YOU decide where your destination is!

You're Lost, really lost!

I hope you find it! I really do!

Chris Sykes - www.hyiq.org (http://www.hyiq.org)

Chris:

So, are you suggesting that the equator on the earth is a sort of Bloch wall for the planet then?  I understand your points about the Coriolis effect and I do agree since this equates with what I was taught.

Interesting...I will have to think about this....

Bill

Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 03, 2015, 05:52:43 AM
Chris:

So, are you suggesting that the equator on the earth is a sort of Bloch wall for the planet then?  I understand your points about the Coriolis effect and I do agree since this equates with what I was taught.

Interesting...I will have to think about this....

Bill

Hi Bill,

Yes of course, sure is!

Evidence speaks for itself, nonsense does too! People are not stupid! Sooner or later experiment and Logic will speak truth!

All the Best

  Chris

P.S: My devices are not dependant on the BLOCH WALL! They use standard Laws in Noise Cancellation! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 01:02:38 AM
Iron Filings are a VERY Bad control and should not be used! They only are used by amateurs that simply don't know any better!

Reason: it's the same as two wires carrying current in the opposing directions can not lay parallel together! The Spins repel each other. As a result they are repelled from each other! This means the take an alternate path. That's why Iron Filings are So Much Denser on the Poles that in the centre of the Magnet!

What you mean is that iron filings REFUTE your silly contention, so they should not be used!

Don't you even realize how your green film works? Clearly not. It is showing you exactly the same thing that the iron filings are showing you, because basically that is what it is. What you are calling a "Bloch Wall" is the area where the embedded ferromagnetic particles in the film are presenting a different surface to you than they are at the "poles" of the magnet. Every magnetic field modelling software, every engineer who designs things like motors and generators that work, will be in agreement with MH on this topic, and will just be laughing at you. The green film is just a convenient way of using "iron filings" and you are completely  misinterpreting what it is telling you.

The Coriolis effect has ZERO, nothing at all, to do with magnetic fields. Nothing, zip, nada. If the Earth did not rotate there would be no Coriolis effect. If the Earth's magnetic field were to flip or disappear altogether, the Coriolis effect would still happen just as it does now, as long as the Earth rotates.

Your Reason is also false. The iron filings are more dense at the "poles" of the magnet because the field is concentrated there. The iron filings are bits of material with high permeability which means, in real science-speak, that they provide an easier path for the field than does empty space or air. The iron filings trace out the field direction by their orientation, and the field strength by their concentration.

Parallel current carrying wires have magnetic field lines that are circular around the wire. This field does not "spin". If you draw out the vectors which represent these circular field lines you will see... no, scratch that, because you only see what you want to see. Anyone who really can observe, will see that the vectors describe the repulsion or attraction, depending on the current direction, just as they do in a normal magnet.

Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 03, 2015, 05:52:43 AM
Chris:

So, are you suggesting that the equator on the earth is a sort of Bloch wall for the planet then?  I understand your points about the Coriolis effect and I do agree since this equates with what I was taught.

Interesting...I will have to think about this....

Bill

Where did you ever learn that the Coriolis effect has anything to do with magnetism? I'd like to see that reference, please.

There is no magnetic "equator" to the Earth in the same sense as the rotational equator. There is an approximate zone where the Earth's field is maximally parallel to the surface and this is what is called the "magnetic equator", equidistant from the _magnetic poles_. The magnetic poles, as you know, are not in the same location as the rotation poles of the Earth. The Coriolis effect depends on the Earth's rotation _only_, not magnetism.  The Earth's field has the same kind of orientation as the field from a sphere magnet, roughly. Near the magnetic poles, the "dip" (magnetic inclination) is such that the field points nearly up and down, which is why conventionally-mounted magnetic compasses don't work too well; they want to point down or up rather than swivelling in the horizontal plane. Near the middle of the field, that is approximately along the Earth's rotational equator, the "dip" is horizontal and magnetic compasses work the best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect

Chris:

Quote
Iron Filings are a VERY Bad control and should not be used! They only are used by amateurs that simply don't know any better!

Reason: it's the same as two wires carrying current in the opposing directions can not lay parallel together! The Spins repel each other. As a result they are repelled from each other! This means the take an alternate path. That's why Iron Filings are So Much Denser on the Poles that in the centre of the Magnet!

Did you look a Tinman's linked clips?  They are great.

Your argument against iron filings doesn't hold water.  What do you mean by a spin?  What do you mean by an alternate path?

Look, everything related to magnetic field generation stems from one elemental thing - the magnetic field of a moving point charge.  This can easily be derived on paper using logic and mathematics.  The iron filing patterns just confirm for us visually what we know is there already from deductive reasoning.  There is no such thing as a north pole or a south pole.  There is no such thing as a Bloch Wall in a bar magnet.  There is just moving point charges and the associated magnetic fields that they produce.  Every moving point charge generates a magnetic field that undergoes vector addition with the magnetic fields generated by all the other moving point charges.  A bar magnet is nothing more than a brick of trillions of moving point charges generating a larger magnetic field.

Here are two clips that lay it all out for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waTF7kjmmt8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrUPxWfVvk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xrUPxWfVvk)

That's really all there is when you distill it down to it's bare essence.

You have now had several opportunities to make your case and state it on your terms.  You have been given the opportunity to discuss a fly-through of your model of a bar magnet but you have avoided that.

So what have you stated:  There is a Coriolis force because of the spinning Earth??  That has nothing to do with what we are even talking about.  You talk about being scientific.  You are supposed to discuss how a magnet works and your response is to talk about the Corillis force and how hurricanes spin in different directions in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Does that sound scientific to you?

Sorry but you haven't made your case at all.  Do you see that also?  There is no substance to your argument at all.

My suggestion to you is to rethink all of this stuff out in your head again and to get up the learning curve.  All of your experiments will still be the same with the same results, but hopefully you will have the proper insight.

MileHigh

Couple interesting photo's.
The first is a science project my 10 year old son did proving the iron filing experiment found in every textbook is incorrect. The filings align forming lines due to magnetic induction which he showed on a larger scale with short suspended iron wires. It is not a true representation of the magnetic field it is an effect produced by magnetic induction due to the presence of a magnetic field. Magnetic viewing film is simply smaller pieces of iron suspended in a film and ferrofluid even smaller iron particles. The scale of the particles may change however the effect of magnetic induction is the same.


The second picture is a bar magnets field captured using neutron spin, I believe, which is a more true representation of the field in my opinion. The reason for the curvature in my opinion is leakage, take one magnet and the field curls back on itself...the dipole field. Take two magnets together and the main field curls back plus each individual field of each magnet also curls back as flux leakage. Now take millions of dipole fields combined to produce the main field but all produce flux leakage in themselves which forms a field distortion. Obviously flux lines cannot cross because there are no lines in reality and it is a simple effect produced my magnetic induction. However the field can be distorted in the near field which is perfectly acceptable according to the laws we know.


The thing to remember is we know flux leakage occurs and we also know every magnetic field we see is the combined effort of many smaller magnetic fields. So why would we presume flux leakage occurs on one level but not the other?.


AC

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 12:24:55 AM
Looks like they aren't the only ones doing that. Funny how iron filings don't show that pinch at the waist, isn't it.

I would say: stunning, yes.  I invite any of them to show that the curl at the center that they claim exists, but which soft magnetic material does not seem influenced by does not diminish as a dipole gets longer.

Quote from: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 08:48:33 AM
Couple interesting photo's.
The first is a science project my 10 year old son did proving the iron filing experiment found in every textbook is incorrect. The filings align forming lines due to magnetic induction which he showed on a larger scale with short suspended iron wires. It is not a true representation of the magnetic field it is an effect produced by magnetic induction due to the presence of a magnetic field. Magnetic viewing film is simply smaller pieces of iron suspended in a film and ferrofluid even smaller iron particles. The scale of the particles may change however the effect of magnetic induction is the same.

Do you or do you not understand that induction requires a changing magnetic field?  Iron filing experiments are performed with static, unchanging magnetic fields.  Kindly explain the induced field after:  1s, 5s, or 1 minute.  Do the filings align differently in those time frames as the induced electric field diminishes towards zero?

Quote


The second picture is a bar magnets field captured using neutron spin, I believe, which is a more true representation of the field in my opinion. The reason for the curvature in my opinion is leakage, take one magnet and the field curls back on itself...the dipole field. Take two magnets together and the main field curls back plus each individual field of each magnet also curls back as flux leakage. Now take millions of dipole fields combined to produce the main field but all produce flux leakage in themselves which forms a field distortion. Obviously flux lines cannot cross because there are no lines in reality and it is a simple effect produced my magnetic induction. However the field can be distorted in the near field which is perfectly acceptable according to the laws we know.


The thing to remember is we know flux leakage occurs and we also know every magnetic field we see is the combined effort of many smaller magnetic fields. So why would we presume flux leakage occurs on one level but not the other?.


AC

No presumption for or against flux leakage is necessary to make correct observations using ordinary static magnets and iron filings.  If you would like to investigate further, go buy one of those nice analog output Hall effect sensors from Allegro Microsystems probe, record, and plot the magnetic field orientation and magnitude around various magnets, permanent and electric.  You will see that the conventional view offered with lowly iron filings is in fact correct.

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 10:02:10 AM
  You will see that the conventional view offered with lowly iron filings is in fact correct.

The iron filings do not show a correct representation of the magnetic field around a magnet,and the reason for this is because each individual iron filing becomes a tempoary magnet it self when in the presence of a magnetic field. So you are basically surounding your PM with very small PM's when you use iron filings. If you want to know what the actual field looks like around say a rod magnet,you simply put two tennis balls together--this represents the field shape around a rod magnet. The field strength of a magnet is at it's strongest at the center(between the two pole ends),but it is concentrated within the magnetic material,and thus the reason for the zero attraction force around the outside of the center of the magnet. Picture a figure 8,and you have your magnetic field shape.

Oh-by the way-the coriolis effect has nothing to do with this mistical bloch wall,and everything to do with a force that is acting in a direction that is perpendicular to the axis of the rotating mass.

Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2015, 11:39:52 AM
The iron filings do not show a correct representation of the magnetic field around a magnet,and the reason for this is because each individual iron filing becomes a tempoary magnet it self when in the presence of a magnetic field. So you are basically surounding your PM with very small PM's when you use iron filings. If you want to know what the actual field looks like around say a rod magnet,you simply put two tennis balls together--this represents the field shape around a rod magnet. The field strength of a magnet is at it's strongest at the center(between the two pole ends),but it is concentrated within the magnetic material,and thus the reason for the zero attraction force around the outside of the center of the magnet. Picture a figure 8,and you have your magnetic field shape.

Oh-by the way-the coriolis effect has nothing to do with this mistical bloch wall,and everything to do with a force that is acting in a direction that is perpendicular to the axis of the rotating mass.

Tinman, the fact that iron filings magnetize is exactly why they are a good indicator of the the magnetic field orientation and strength.

If you want to test your hypothesis, then that is easy:  Go purchase an analog Hall effect sensor and probe the field of a dipole magnet or any other magnet shape you care to look at.  Or you have a large dipole, like a long wooden dowel or plastic rod with a winding along its length, then you can just use a compass.  The figure eight idea you promote would cause the compass needle to turn 90 degrees at the dipole center when held off axis.  That does not happen.  Held off axis, the compass will always point most parallel to the dipole closest to the dipole center.

@Mark E

QuoteDo you or do you not understand that induction requires a
changing magnetic field?  Iron filing experiments are performed
with static, unchanging magnetic fields.  Kindly explain the
induced field after:  1s, 5s, or 1 minute.  Do the filings align differently in
those time frames as the induced electric field diminishes towards zero?

Ah I see the problem you are thinking of Electromagnetic Induction and I am speaking of Magnetic Induction.
Magnetic Induction: 1.The process by which a substance, such as iron or steel becomes magnetized by a magnetic field. The Induced Magnetism is produced by the force of the field radiating from the poles of the magnet.

QuoteNo presumption for or against flux leakage is necessary to make correct
observations using ordinary static magnets and iron filings.  If you would like
to investigate further, go buy one of those nice analog output Hall effect
sensors from Allegro Microsystems probe, record, and plot the magnetic field
orientation and magnitude around various magnets, permanent and electric.  You
will see that the conventional view offered with lowly iron filings is in fact
correct.

That was what I was using when I made the measurements, an analog hall effect sensor as well as a hall effect sensor array I built as I stated in my prior posts. Your not listening and inferring things which are incorrect. I did not say induction I specifically said "Magnetic Induction" which is a very simple and well know fundamental principal known to most everyone who understands basic physics. A permanent magnet having a magnetic field will induce a magnetic field of opposite polarity in a piece of iron within it's field of influence. The induced magnetic field in the iron is considered as a separate magnetic field in itself and can be measured as such even though it is a function of an external field.
To make my point, I try to avoid superficial observations which tend to confuse even most experts and concentrate on Primary Physics. This is the primary field phenomena such as the Electric, Magnetic and Gravic fields in their most fundamental forms. It avoids all the confusion I am seeing here and concentrates on the most fundamental interactions between the Primary Fields. You need to start studying the basics of Magnetic Induction and Electrostatic Induction and how they relate to one another in reality versus your textbook theory.

Now go back to the image on magnetic induction I posted until you actually understand it, my 10 year old son does so I am sure you can.

AC

Quote from: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 12:43:45 PM
@Mark EAh I see the problem you are thinking of Electromagnetic Induction and I am speaking of Magnetic Induction.
Magnetic Induction: 1.The process by which a substance, such as iron or steel becomes magnetized by a magnetic field. The Induced Magnetism is produced by the force of the field radiating from the poles of the magnet.That was what I was using when I made the measurements, an analog hall effect sensor as well as a hall effect sensor array I built as I stated in my prior posts. Your not listening and inferring things which are incorrect. I did not say induction I specifically said "Magnetic Induction" which is a very simple and well know fundamental principal known to most everyone who understands basic physics. A permanent magnet having a magnetic field will induce a magnetic field of opposite polarity in a piece of iron within it's field of influence. The induced magnetic field in the iron is considered as a separate magnetic field in itself and can be measured as such even though it is a function of an external field.
To make my point, I try to avoid superficial observations which tend to confuse even most experts and concentrate on Primary Physics. This is the primary field phenomena such as the Electric, Magnetic and Gravic fields in their most fundamental forms. It avoids all the confusion I am seeing here and concentrates on the most fundamental interactions between the Primary Fields. You need to start studying the basics of Magnetic Induction and Electrostatic Induction and how they relate to one another in reality versus your textbook theory.

Now go back to the image on magnetic induction I posted until you actually understand it, my 10 year old son does so I am sure you can.

AC

Do you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron filings?  By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron reduces the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the newly magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the region of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact correspond to the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the dipole at the dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is false.

@All refuting the Iron Filing contrives!

Ever heard of Spin Polarisation - Please do some homework! Its basic Science!

Again something else that refutes Non-Sense of Magnets not having an equator - for the same reason Planets revolve the Galactic Plane, Why does the Frog become weightless in the "Middle" of the Field, where the Bloch Wall is:

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 01:42:03 PM
Do you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron filings?  By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron reduces the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the newly magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the region of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact correspond to the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the dipole at the dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is false.

MarkE and TK,

Magnetics since the very early days has stated: "magnetic field lines always form closed loops"

Iron Filings show clearly an approximate 70% LOSS of Magnetic Field Line Closure - How do you account for this AMAZING fact!

Really Ridiculous Science is no longer holding water! But yet its still being preached by the Priest's here on ou.com! People are smarter than that!

How is it that Ferro-Fluid can show a TOTALLY DIFFERENT Pattern to Iron Filings? Iron Fillings are Conductive! Conductivity is another part of Magnetism, that's why its now called Electromagnetism!  Electric is at 90 Degrees to Magnetic! Really people please add some logic to your piffle! "Coriolis Effect" in Ferro Fluid:

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 08:02:39 AM


Where did you ever learn that the Coriolis effect has anything to do with magnetism? I'd like to see that reference, please.

No where.  What I said/meant was what I was taught about the Coriolis effect agreed with what Chis said about it. (It being the Coriolis Effect)..about the magnetism and equator Bloch wall, I said it was interesting and I will have to think about that.

Bill

Chris:

Yes, water is very slightly diamagnetic and in the presence of a strong enough magnetic field a frog can be made to float in air.

It looks to me like all that you are doing is paraphrasing stuff that you have read about magnetism from junk sources.  In those books they talk about all sorts of stuff and try to connect it with magnetism.  Unfortunately it's just not true.  It's a form of alternative pulp fiction.  I remember having a debate with a guy that told me that the moon was changing in its orbit and something "big" was going to happen.  I told him that was impossible.  I told him that there were tens of thousands of amateur astronomers and if it was really true we would hear about it.  He had nothing to say, he was jut parroting stuff that he had read.

Can you make a case for a Bloch Wall being at the center of a bar magnet without talking about unrelated matters?

MileHigh

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 02:48:45 PM
MarkE and TK,

Magnetics since the very early days has stated: "magnetic field lines always form closed loops"

They do.

Quote

Iron Filings show clearly an approximate 70% LOSS of Magnetic Field Line Closure - How do you account for this AMAZING fact!

That's a nice assertion.  Care to back it up?  Care to show how if we introduce iron filings that 70% of the field lines that previously went pole to pole no longer make it?  Care to show where the iron filings supposedly send those lines off to?

Quote

Really Ridiculous Science is no longer holding water! But yet its still being preached by the Priest's here on ou.com! People are smarter than that!

Actual reliable data always tells the true story.  The story you are telling is just odd.

Quote

How is it that Ferro-Fluid can show a TOTALLY DIFFERENT Pattern to Iron Filings? Iron Fillings are Conductive! Conductivity is another part of Magnetism, that's why its now called Electromagnetism!  Electric is at 90 Degrees to Magnetic! Really people please add some logic to your piffle! "Coriolis Effect" in Ferro Fluid:

Now you have just gone into left field.  In a TEM wave the propagating electric field is at 90 degrees to the propagating magnetic field.

Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2015, 11:39:52 AM
The iron filings do not show a correct representation of the magnetic field around a magnet...

You're EXACTLY RIGHT Tinman!

Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2015, 11:39:52 AM
Oh-by the way-the coriolis effect has nothing to do with this mistical bloch wall,and everything to do with a force that is acting in a direction that is perpendicular to the axis of the rotating mass.

And again you're right, the "Coriolis Effect" is NOT the Bloch Wall! Just as if you were to watch the Sun Rise, a Cloud passes the Light Rays of the Sun and a Silver Lining is seen around the Cloud! This Is not the Sun, and its not the cloud, but in-fact a mixture of effects showing another!

Why does Ferro Fluid not show a SINGLE Flux Line like the MAGICAL IRON FILINGS???? What could that space in the Middle of the Polar Regions be??? It sort of looks like an Equator??? Really - Surely by now the proof I have given you PREACHERS Should be enough! But alas, like I said, some here can not be converted! I am not trying to convert anyone! I am showing provable facts! Giving Evidence to backup my Well Researched Science!

NONE HERE Have done the Same! Verbal Non-Sense with not a single bit of factual evidence!

@Mark E

Quote
Do you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron
filings?  By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron
reduces the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the
newly magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the
region of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact
correspond to the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the
dipole at the dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is
false.

Good points now what have we learned, well we have learned absolutely nothing new have we which is exactly what always happens when an argument is based on winning the argument rather than understanding. Why anyone can play that game, all you have said is false and logically it must be false because some very intelligent scientists who produced the picture below have proven you false. You see I don't have to think about anything or learn anything or research anything and all I have to do is show a picture, I win, but we both lose don't we?.
LOL, I will have to consider your question further before posting an answer.
AC

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 03:12:42 PM
They do.That's a nice assertion.  Care to back it up?

MarkE - Did I not provide visuals? Care to back up any argument to the Contrary?

Part of your argument actually agrees with what I had already said! Are you agreeing? Or are you trying to make a counter debate? Its really not clear?

Fact is Iron Filings For Viewing Magnetic Fields is one of the worst experiments that anyone can do! Simply because some don't know better! Spin Polarisation of Conductive Iron Fillings - is the reason! To dispute this is to dispute most of electrical Engineering!

Common MarkE - You sound like a fairly smart kind of a guy! Explain just some of the points I have brought up with the existing Imaginary Theory held in this forum!

The Earth has an Equator because of its Magnetic Field, A Magnet has an Equator too - if one does simple experiments, you can:

1: See it!
2: Feel it!
3: Measure it!

Quote from: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 03:19:29 PM
@Mark EGood points now what have we learned, well we have learned absolutely nothing new have we which is exactly what always happens when an argument is based on winning the argument rather than understanding. Why anyone can play that game, all you have said is false and logically it must be false because some very intelligent scientists who produced the picture below have proven you false. You see I don't have to think about anything or learn anything or research anything and all I have to do is show a picture, I win, but we both lose don't we?.
LOL, I will have to consider your question further before posting an answer.
AC

Nice Pic AC!!! I wonder what that could be showing, very clearly! Is that an Equator? I think it is!!!

The Equator and the Bloch Wall are the same things!!!

Quote from: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 03:19:29 PM
@Mark EGood points now what have we learned, well we have learned absolutely nothing new have we which is exactly what always happens when an argument is based on winning the argument rather than understanding. Why anyone can play that game, all you have said is false and logically it must be false because some very intelligent scientists who produced the picture below have proven you false. You see I don't have to think about anything or learn anything or research anything and all I have to do is show a picture, I win, but we both lose don't we?.
LOL, I will have to consider your question further before posting an answer.
AC

Are you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.

@Mark E

QuoteDo you understand that you just killed your own argument against iron filings? 
By inducing a pole that is opposite polarity, the magnetized soft iron reduces
the reluctance gap between the poles.  Ergo the field set-up by the newly
magnetized soft iron only intensifies the field that was already in the region
of the dipole they surround.  Ergo their alignment does in fact correspond to
the field direction.  Ergo since they do not turn towards the dipole at the
dipole center, the proposition that the field turns there is false

.
Okay it seems pretty straightforward, where is the point of greatest field density and where is the point of the lowest field density?. The poles have the highest field density therefore the lowest density must be somewhere inbetween ie. the center. Now if the induced magnetic fields are coupled in lines then the translation of force in the field is along those lines repelling and attracting through there own coupling. So why would we think there would be any deflection in the induced magnetic lines near the center where the field has the least influence?. I know many think this is a simple issue but it is not as the induced iron filing fields are individual magnets interacting with one another as well as the external field, there is a lot of stuff going on here.
Of course once again my thoughts are in question because of the last picture I posted however the picture is based on neutron spin and not induced magnetism in iron which are obviously not the same thing. So there is our answer I believe however I have yet to understand the exact mechanism of how and why the field geometries are so different. Damn I think I just learned something...woot.
AC

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 03:49:17 PM
Are you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.

What, NO FIELD LINES IN CLOSURE ON THEMSELVES? Wow! Nice assertion!

@Mark E

QuoteAre you really so far gone that you do not understand the very graphic that
you have posted?  The picture you posted agrees with the conventional view.

I could ask you the same question, the picture I posted looks nothing like the one posted of iron filings in a magnetic field... or have I missed something?.
AC

Quote from: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 03:52:47 PM
@Mark EI could ask you the same question, the picture I posted looks nothing like the one posted of iron filings in a magnetic field... or have I missed something?.
AC

Quite the contrary.  According to the conventional view which iron filing experiments support, field lines become most parallel close to the dipole mid point.  According to this "equator" idea the field lines close ellipses at the equator.  In other words:  the curl is maximum there.  Look at your picture.  The lines come parallel.  They do not turn to form closed upper and lower ellipses.

@Mark E

QuoteQuite the contrary.  According to the conventional view which iron filing
experiments support, field lines become most parallel close to the dipole mid
point.  According to this "equator" idea the field lines close ellipses at the
equator.  In other words:  the curl is maximum there.  Look at your picture. 
The lines come parallel.  They do not turn to form closed upper and lower
ellipses.

Okay you don't see the connection which is fine however I have to thank you for asking some pretty hard questions today and it's appreciated. I mean I learned a ridiculous amount of new stuff today and it only seems to work if I start asking the right questions in the right context and start connecting the dots. We could say me pushing you to push me harder moves me forward faster but you have to connect the dots and see the solution in it otherwise it's pointless. It was awesome:)
To the bench... .
AC

Quote from: allcanadian on January 03, 2015, 04:36:59 PM
@Mark EOkay you don't see the connection which is fine however I have to thank you for asking some pretty hard questions today and it's appreciated. I mean I learned a ridiculous amount of new stuff today and it only seems to work if I start asking the right questions in the right context and start connecting the dots. We could say me pushing you to push me harder moves me forward faster but you have to connect the dots and see the solution in it otherwise it's pointless. It was awesome:)
To the bench... .
AC

You do see that the contours turn parallel near the center of the dipole don't you?

Logic Card - because Score Card is a little bit boast-full!

Pink Team : 1

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 04:50:41 PM
Logic Card - because Score Card is a little bit boast-full!

Pink Team : 1

Logic Card because Score Card is a little bit boast-full!

Green Team : 8 + 3 Video Links

URL1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MS3FM7bYas
URL2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBVntSA-qoQ
URL3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw

Plus one more: (Thinking very Hard kiddies, what is the Natural Current Sheet?)

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 05:27:47 PM
Plus one more: (Thinking very Hard kiddies, what is the Natural Current Sheet?)

This one is from NASA just in case you're STILL worried that I have not provided enough SCIENTIFIC PROOF that there is an Equator, also known as a Bloch Wall:

In Any Court of Law, that verdict would have been already drawn. Bad Science would be paying Damages and me, well I would be in my lab, experimenting on BASIC IDEAS THAT WORK WITH SOLID SCIENCE TO BACK IT ALL UP.

Time to make changes People! Time to Clean our your Clogged Cavity's!

Like I said a few days ago:

"Experimental EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTABLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH RUBBISH YOU TALK. You dispute EXPERIMENT You're a fool!"

Maybe if I had a OU.com score of 10,000 I could Bullshit People up the garden path! I would rather use REAL Science and get somewhere!

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes - hyiq.org

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 06:22:23 PM
In Any Court of Law, that verdict would have been already drawn. Bad Science would be paying Damages and me, well I would be in my lab, experimenting on BASIC IDEAS THAT WORK WITH SOLID SCIENCE TO BACK IT ALL UP.

Time to make changes People! Time to Clean our your Clogged Cavity's!

Like I said a few days ago:

"Experimental EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTABLE NO MATTER HOW MUCH RUBBISH YOU TALK. You dispute EXPERIMENT You're a fool!"

Maybe if I had a OU.com score of 10,000 I could Bullshit People up the garden path! I would rather use REAL Science and get somewhere!

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes - hyiq.org

The most appropriate term for what you are espousing is:  face palm.  It is worse than wrong.

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 12:07:26 PM
Tinman, the fact that iron filings magnetize is exactly why they are a good indicator of the the magnetic field orientation and strength.

If you want to test your hypothesis, then that is easy:  Go purchase an analog Hall effect sensor and probe the field of a dipole magnet or any other magnet shape you care to look at.  Or you have a large dipole, like a long wooden dowel or plastic rod with a winding along its length, then you can just use a compass.  The figure eight idea you promote would cause the compass needle to turn 90 degrees at the dipole center when held off axis.  That does not happen.  Held off axis, the compass will always point most parallel to the dipole closest to the dipole center.

The strongest outer field strength is at each pole end of a magnet at the outer edge of that pole,and the most concentrated field is at the center of the two pole ends(what would be the middle of a rod magnet for EG). The figure 8 represents the field strength quite good other than it would need a dip in the center of the top and bottom peaks. You dont need any flash hall sensors,all you need is a simple fram,a spring,a hinge and a good size nail or steel rod. The compass also shows exactly the pattern of a figure 8 when running it down the length of a long rod magnet.

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 07:10:30 PM
The most appropriate term for what you are espousing is:  face palm.  It is worse than wrong.

And this MarkE is your Scientific Rebuttal?  You've proved debate is past helping some! Some are lost, very lost!

Kind Regards

  Chris Sykes - hyiq.org

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 12:07:26 PM

QuoteThe figure eight idea you promote would cause the compass needle to turn 90 degrees at the dipole center when held off axis.  That does not happen.  Held off axis, the compass will always point most parallel to the dipole closest to the dipole center.

Now you are confusing your self between the two poles of the compass needle being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet with the thinking that the compass needle is showing the orientation of the field it self,as if you believe that the field is along the plane of the compass needle. The iron filings become magnets them self,and want to be attracted to each pole end,but also repelled by each other. This is why you get the pattern you do when useing iron filings,and not a true representation of the magnets field line's(no field lines actually exist). An example is a steel ball placed between to north fields of two apposing magnets will be attracted to a point,then repelled away from those magnets when it gets close enough. The same thing happens to the iron filings,and gives you a faulse indication that the field  travels around a magnet from one pole to the other.Field line's,bloch walls and field flow are all fictional ,and do not actually exist in either a PM or electromagnet.

Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2015, 07:15:47 PM
The stongest outer field strength is at each pole end of a magnet at the outer edge of that pole,and the most concentrated field is at the center of the two pole ends(what would be the middle of a rod magnet for EG). The figure 8 represents the field strength quite good other than it would need a dip in the center of the top and bottom peaks. You dont need any flash hall sensors,all you need is a simple fram,a spring,a hinge and a good size nail or steel rod. The compass also shows exactly the pattern of a figure 8 when running it down the length of a long rod magnet.

Tinman as is taught in school and has been known for many, many years, the field around a dipole follows a contiguous closed path from pole to pole.  You can see this for yourself with a very simple experiment.  All you need is a compass and some bar magnets that you can configure into a dipole much longer than the compass diameter.  Align the dipole along east west.  Position the compass at points around the dipole from one end to the other and note the needle position.  The needle aligns with the field.  The north seeking end of the compass needle will point along the field lines away from the north magnet pole parallel to the lines themselves.  If as is proposed the lines turned inward towards the magnet at the dipole midpoint, this would be immediately obvious.  They don't.  As in the conventional view, the compass indication is most stable near the dipole midpoint.

Some more Evidence that Iron Filing Experiments are for people that simply cant comprehend why they are faulted experiments!

What We See: Ferrofluid Spikes are the Poles of the Magnets. Middle, between the Ferrofluid Spikes is the Bloch Wall or the Equator!

Again I will give you the Reason why: Iron Fillings are Conductive, Electric and Magnetic Vectors are at 90 degrees to each other. Spin Polarisation will not allow them to show what's really there!

Credit: http://vimeo.com/16908278

As Ferrofluid is dropped in from the top of the sample, we can CLEARLY see in Slow-mo that the Field Lines are not allowing for what some view as Iron Filling Lines to be closed from Pole to Pole!!! There is CLEARLY, same as on the Sun, Filament Eruptions, they are repelling each other!!!

YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnp5YyJqjGg&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 08:17:33 PM
Tinman as is taught in school and has been known for many, many years, the field around a dipole follows a contiguous closed path from pole to pole.  You can see this for yourself with a very simple experiment.  All you need is a compass and some bar magnets that you can configure into a dipole much longer than the compass diameter.  Align the dipole along east west.  Position the compass at points around the dipole from one end to the other and note the needle position.  The needle aligns with the field.  The north seeking end of the compass needle will point along the field lines away from the north magnet pole parallel to the lines themselves.  If as is proposed the lines turned inward towards the magnet at the dipole midpoint, this would be immediately obvious.  They don't.  As in the conventional view, the compass indication is most stable near the dipole midpoint.

MarkE - This is a TOTAL Cop-Out! It doesn't hold water for a Long Solenoid!

WOW Talk about quoting Textbooks that are old science that are already proven to be WRONG!!!

Seriously do the experiment!!!

Video on the Aharanov-Bohm effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgDPK5MLVnE

"Simply speaking when an electron beam passes around the middle of a long solenoid, the beam is strangely deviated and the interference pattern on the screen slides".

Here we can see the field in the middle is zero:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=786wRJqhoMY

Quote from: synchro1 on January 03, 2015, 08:35:23 PM
"Simply speaking when an electron beam passes around the middle of a long solenoid, the beam is strangely deviated and the interference pattern on the screen slides".

Synchro1 - NICE Find! - Yet more evidence!!!!

Again, doesn't Hold Water MarkE!!!

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 08:29:12 PM
Some more Evidence that Iron Filing Experiments are for people that simply cant comprehend why they are faulted experiments!

What We See: Ferrofluid Spikes are the Poles of the Magnets. Middle, between the Ferrofluid Spikes is the Bloch Wall or the Equator!

Again I will give you the Reason why: Iron Fillings are Conductive, Electric and Magnetic Vectors are at 90 degrees to each other. Spin Polarisation will not allow them to show what's really there!

Credit: http://vimeo.com/16908278

As Ferrofluid is dropped in from the top of the sample, we can CLEARLY see in Slow-mo that the Field Lines are not allowing for what some view as Iron Filling Lines to be closed from Pole to Pole!!! There is CLEARLY, same as on the Sun, Filament Eruptions, they are repelling each other!!!

YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnp5YyJqjGg&list=UU-B9gZZShrbxp9YTWgRPsKw

Your conclusions are not supported by the videos that you show.  The second video decidedly refutes your claims.

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 08:46:56 PM
Synchro1 - NICE Find! - Yet more evidence!!!!

Again, doesn't Hold Water MarkE!!!

@Chris,

The experiment on pages 13 and 14 of your PDF, proving that a magnetic field slows electric current down, places MarkE's DLE wrong theory squarely in the dumps. It's clear now that there is delay in the coil coupled with increased field strength! Thanks!

Quote from: synchro1 on January 03, 2015, 08:35:23 PM
Video on the Aharanov-Bohm effect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgDPK5MLVnE

"Simply speaking when an electron beam passes around the middle of a long solenoid, the beam is strangely deviated and the interference pattern on the screen slides".

Here we can see the field in the middle is zero:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=786wRJqhoMY

The second video again soundly refutes your claims.

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 09:00:21 PM
The second video again soundly refutes your claims.

Its well known today in ALL PHYSICS that Your claim is Wrong MarkE - A Long Solenoid proves, and blows your prehistoric textbook theory, with NO experimental evidence to prove other wise! Right out of the Water!

You have nothing to stand on!

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 03, 2015, 09:13:51 PM
Its well known today in ALL PHYSICS that Your claim is Wrong MarkE - A Long Solenoid proves, and blows your prehistoric textbook theory, with NO experimental evidence to prove other wise! Right out of the Water!

You have nothing to stand on!

This is beyond face palm material.  Anyone with a hobby store or Radio Shack nearby can purchase the materials needed to perform the grade school experiments that have been conducted countless times.  Those experiments support the correct conventional view that the magnetic lines of force go from pole to pole and not from either pole to the dipole mid-point as shown in my prior graphic.  Feel free to repeat such an experiment and show whether you get the result that "prehistoric textbook theory" predicts or the compass deflects perpendicular to the dipole at the center as your claims require.

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 09:39:23 PM
This is beyond face palm material.  Anyone with a hobby store or Radio Shack nearby can purchase the materials needed to perform the grade school experiments that have been conducted countless times.  Those experiments support the correct conventional view that the magnetic lines of force go from pole to pole and not from either pole to the dipole mid-point as shown in my prior graphic.  Feel free to repeat such an experiment and show whether you get the result that "prehistoric textbook theory" predicts or the compass deflects perpendicular to the dipole at the center as your claims require.

The field changes polarity pole to pole. The transistion zone is neutral. This is what the video shows

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 09:39:23 PM
This is beyond face palm material.  Anyone with a hobby store or Radio Shack nearby can purchase the materials needed to perform the grade school experiments that have been conducted countless times.  Those experiments support the correct conventional view that the magnetic lines of force go from pole to pole and not from either pole to the dipole mid-point as shown in my prior graphic.  Feel free to repeat such an experiment and show whether you get the result that "prehistoric textbook theory" predicts or the compass deflects perpendicular to the dipole at the center as your claims require.

MarkE - Your experiment proves nothing other than a Compass Works! That the North Pole of a Compass is Attracted to the South Pole of a Magnet and vice versa!

It proves nothing else! It DOES NOT prove that the Lines of Force you propose from Pole to Pole are Contiguous or even exist! This is a TOTALLY PROPOUSTEROUS Argument! So you're essentially saying that the Earth HAS NO EQUATOR?

You're Impossibly Confused with High School Science from back in 1932 I think!

Oh but they knew then that there was an Equator, or were you off sick that day? Cant have been because your previous drawing clearly shows a boundary between North (Red) and South (Blue)!

Quote from: MarkE on January 03, 2015, 08:17:33 PM
Tinman as is taught in school and has been known for many, many years, the field around a dipole follows a contiguous closed path from pole to pole.  You can see this for yourself with a very simple experiment.  All you need is a compass and some bar magnets that you can configure into a dipole much longer than the compass diameter.  Align the dipole along east west.  Position the compass at points around the dipole from one end to the other and note the needle position.  The needle aligns with the field.  The north seeking end of the compass needle will point along the field lines away from the north magnet pole parallel to the lines themselves.  If as is proposed the lines turned inward towards the magnet at the dipole midpoint, this would be immediately obvious.  They don't.  As in the conventional view, the compass indication is most stable near the dipole midpoint.

As i said,your analogy is incorrect,and cannot be shown with a compass. See my modified picture below. As you can clearly see,the compass will still show exactly the same as it would in your example.The magnetic polarity of the compass needle is simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet. To say that the compass needle should point toward the center of the magnet if my analogy was correct is also wrong. To what pole would the north attracting end of the needle on the compass point to,as the center of the magnet has both a north field and a south field. The field at the center of a magnet(between each pole end)is concentrated within the magnetic material it self,and only at the pole ends dose that field extend beyound the magnetic material. The field then tappers from the pole ends back into the magnetic material near the center between the two pole end's.

Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2015, 10:26:23 PM
As i said,your analogy is incorrect,and cannot be shown with a compass. See my modified picture below. As you can clearly see,the compass will still show exactly the same as it would in your example.The magnetic polarity of the compass needle is simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet. To say that the compass needle should point toward the center of the magnet if my analogy was correct is also wrong. To what pole would the north attracting end of the needle on the compass point to,as the center of the magnet has both a north field and a south field. The field at the center of a magnet(between each pole end)is concentrated within the magnetic material it self,and only at the pole ends dose that field extend beyound the magnetic material. The field then tappers from the pole ends back into the magnetic material near the center between the two pole end's.

Tinman, your model fits much better in the overall spectrum of data than the crazy Iron Filing Model! - There is an Equator, also known as the Bloch Wall! Its there, its undeniable to anyone that has a partial clue on Magnetics!

Kind Regards

Chris Sykes

It's incredible how if you want to believe something you can shoehorn your beliefs into your shoes until the point where they are on the edge of bursting open.

Chris, you you are just throwing everything out there except for what really counts - discuss a bar magnet itself.  Not the sun, not pictures of ferrofluid, no talk about the equator, etc.   With respect to ferrofluid, what it is showing you when it bulges up is that the ferrofluid is trying to find a spot where there is the minimum MPE, there is some GPE thrown in the balancing process, and then there is surface tension affecting all of that.   In layman's terms, when you see the spiked bulges in the ferrofluid under the influence of a magnet, it's like when you drop your umbrella on the floor.  The umbrella wants to find the lowest GPE state - so it doesn't float in the air, it doesn't fall to the floor standing on end - it falls onto the floor and lays down flat on the floor.   That's what the ferrofluid spikes are doing also - falling "down."

The is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity.

Tinman:

Quotethe center of the magnet has both a north field and a south field

Nope, there is no such thing as the field lines switching from "north" to "south" as you cross the center of a magnet.  The field lines just have a direction.  At any point anywhere around the magnet there is a detectable field around the magnet.  The magnetic field is a vector, it has magnitude and direction.  We have simply adopted a convention for a bar magnet to designate the magnetic field as being "north" or "south."  But the truth is the only thing there is is magnitude and direction.

Take the example of Kenny and his bean sprout growing experiments.  He claimed something like seeds grown under the influence of a north field grow better than the seeds grown under the influence of a south field.  I don't think he provided any specifics beyond that but I'm not sure.

Here is the problem:  If you point the north end of a magnet at the seeds, and the magnet is under the seeds, it will be the same a pointing the south end of a magnet at the seeds when the magnet is over the seeds.

(seeds)
  N
  S

is equal to

  N
  S
(seeds)

Do you see that?  What the seeds experience is a function of the pole pointed at the seeds and the position of the magnet.  I somehow doubt that Kenny ever specified the position.

Anyway, I am not shocked about this debate with Chris because I am jaded.  But believe me, it is absolutely shocking.  It's absolutely shocking how basic scientific concepts about electricity and magnetism can be used and abused by pulp pseudoscience writers out there.  The writers can be deluded themselves, or, they are just cynical manipulators of other people in search of a dollar.

Like, what the hell was that Bedini "windmill motor" all about that was eventually sold for scrap?   The answer is that it was junk scrap from the very beginning.  It was nothing more than a prop for a conference.  And like I always say, at those conferences they will not teach you how an inductor works, and by the same token they will presumably not teach you how magnetic fields work.

MileHigh

Let's discuss an ideal case for an iron filings test.

In the ideal case the iron filings will not clump together.   Also, they will be fairly spread apart so that there are always big gaps with empty space between the filings.

So if you can imagine iron filings that are spread out but somehow they don't move at all, that is a near-ideal setup.

Why is this ideal?  It's because the filings will barely affect the magnetic field reluctance of the space around the magnet.  With no perceptible changes in reluctance, the field from the magnet will be undisturbed.

What is the problem when the filings clump up at the poles?   The problem is then the filings are creating their own low-reluctance path for the magnetic field of the magnet, and that will disturb the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field.

So why are the iron filings so great?   Under the influence of the magnet, they simply line themselves up with the external magnetic field.  That's all that they do.   One more time, it's the falling umbrella analogy.  The iron filings "fall" to their lowest magnetic potential energy state under the influence of the magnetic field.   Because the overall reluctance of the space is not changed by the presence of the iron flings, the filings basically do nothing except "fall."

So, you have an explanation for how the filings work, and you have the evidence right in front of your eyes.  Do you see any filings pointing towards an imaginary Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet?  No, you don't see this, and the filings don't lie.

We understand how and why the iron filings work, and then we observe them at work.  That's the reality.

To claim that there is something wrong with using iron filings is just ridiculous.

MileHigh

@MileHigh,

"There is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity".

This is a complete and utter falsehood! What kind of perverse pleasure do you get from distorting the truth that shamelessly? You are a very mentally disturbed person who should try and get help.

Quote from: synchro1 on January 03, 2015, 11:59:12 PM
@MileHigh,

"The is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity".

This is a complete and utter falsehood! What kind of perverse pleasure do you get from disorting the truth that shamelessly? You are a very mentally disturbed person who should try and get help.

http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428891/#msg428891

Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2015, 10:26:23 PM
As i said,your analogy is incorrect,and cannot be shown with a compass. See my modified picture below. As you can clearly see,the compass will still show exactly the same as it would in your example.The magnetic polarity of the compass needle is simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet. To say that the compass needle should point toward the center of the magnet if my analogy was correct is also wrong. To what pole would the north attracting end of the needle on the compass point to,as the center of the magnet has both a north field and a south field. The field at the center of a magnet(between each pole end)is concentrated within the magnetic material it self,and only at the pole ends dose that field extend beyound the magnetic material. The field then tappers from the pole ends back into the magnetic material near the center between the two pole end's.

It is elementary that a compass follows the magnetic lines of force that it is exposed to.  In your diagram that does not happen.

Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 11:32:04 PM
It's incredible how if you want to believe something you can shoehorn your beliefs into your shoes until the point where they are on the edge of bursting open.

Chris, you you are just throwing everything out there except for what really counts - discuss a bar magnet itself.  Not the sun, not pictures of ferrofluid, no talk about the equator, etc.   With respect to ferrofluid, what it is showing you when it bulges up is that the ferrofluid is trying to find a spot where there is the minimum MPE, there is some GPE thrown in the balancing process, and then there is surface tension affecting all of that.   In layman's terms, when you see the spiked bulges in the ferrofluid under the influence of a magnet, it's like when you drop your umbrella on the floor.  The umbrella wants to find the lowest GPE state - so it doesn't float in the air, it doesn't fall to the floor standing on end - it falls onto the floor and lays down flat on the floor.   That's what the ferrofluid spikes are doing also - falling "down."

The is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity.

Tinman:

Nope, there is no such thing as the field lines switching from "north" to "south" as you cross the center of a magnet.  The field lines just have a direction.  At any point anywhere around the magnet there is a detectable field around the magnet.  The magnetic field is a vector, it has magnitude and direction.  We have simply adopted a convention for a bar magnet to designate the magnetic field as being "north" or "south."  But the truth is the only thing there is is magnitude and direction.

Take the example of Kenny and his bean sprout growing experiments.  He claimed something like seeds grown under the influence of a north field grow better than the seeds grown under the influence of a south field.  I don't think he provided any specifics beyond that but I'm not sure.

Here is the problem:  If you point the north end of a magnet at the seeds, and the magnet is under the seeds, it will be the same a pointing the south end of a magnet at the seeds when the magnet is over the seeds.

(seeds)
  N
  S

is equal to

  N
  S
(seeds)

Do you see that?  What the seeds experience is a function of the pole pointed at the seeds and the position of the magnet.  I somehow doubt that Kenny ever specified the position.

Anyway, I am not shocked about this debate with Chris because I am jaded.  But believe me, it is absolutely shocking.  It's absolutely shocking how basic scientific concepts about electricity and magnetism can be used and abused by pulp pseudoscience writers out there.  The writers can be deluded themselves, or, they are just cynical manipulators of other people in search of a dollar.

Like, what the hell was that Bedini "windmill motor" all about that was eventually sold for scrap?   The answer is that it was junk scrap from the very beginning.  It was nothing more than a prop for a conference.  And like I always say, at those conferences they will not teach you how an inductor works, and by the same token they will presumably not teach you how magnetic fields work.

MileHigh

MH
I will have to disagree with you on this one in regards to the field surrounding the whole magnet.The north and south analogy is simply me sticking with what people understand. If MarkE wants to stick to things we were taught at school,then north and south it is-you cant have your cake and eat it aswell. I know that there is not a north or south pole(you know this),nor are there field lines as such(this i have said in this thread). I am simply useing the terms that most are familiar with,and taught at school.

First up-what is a bloch wall?. Quote: A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains. So now what is a magnetic domain?-Quote: A magnetic domain is a region within a magnetic material which has uniform magnetization. This means that the individual magnetic moments of the atoms are aligned with one another and they point in the same direction.

Well we know if we turn the alignment of the atoms around at mid point in the magnet,we would end up with two like poles at each end of the magnet. So this brings us to the correct conclusion that there is NO bloch wall at the mid point between the two poles of a magnet,and that a bloch wall can only exist where the magnetic moments of the atoms are not aligned with each other.

The field around a magnet however is not a uniform flow as it is through the center of the magnetic material. There are many experiments that can show a 0(or very close to)external magnetic field strength at the mid point of a magnet.How ever,the field strength in the center of the magnetic material is at it's strongest. If we look at the diagram below(one of the actual test i have performed),we can see three steel balls(in green) The magnet is a cylinder magnet(sizes in diagram). When the steel ball is placed in the center of the two poles on the outside of the magnet,the ball will roll to one end or the other,depending on which side the ball is off center. This is the ball being attracted to the strongest part of the magnetic field. But if we put the steel ball into the whole that is through the magnets center,the steel ball will be drawn to the center of the magnet-not either end. This is because the field strength is at it's highest in the center of the magnetic material. The dark blue figure 8 line represents field strength.

Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2015, 11:32:04 PM
It's incredible how if you want to believe something you can shoehorn your beliefs into your shoes until the point where they are on the edge of bursting open.

Chris, you you are just throwing everything out there except for what really counts - discuss a bar magnet itself.  Not the sun, not pictures of ferrofluid, no talk about the equator, etc.   With respect to ferrofluid, what it is showing you when it bulges up is that the ferrofluid is trying to find a spot where there is the minimum MPE, there is some GPE thrown in the balancing process, and then there is surface tension affecting all of that.   In layman's terms, when you see the spiked bulges in the ferrofluid under the influence of a magnet, it's like when you drop your umbrella on the floor.  The umbrella wants to find the lowest GPE state - so it doesn't float in the air, it doesn't fall to the floor standing on end - it falls onto the floor and lays down flat on the floor.   That's what the ferrofluid spikes are doing also - falling "down."

The is no discontinuity as you travel across the center line of a bar magnet, none!  By definition a Bloch Wall is a discontinuity.

Tinman:

Nope, there is no such thing as the field lines switching from "north" to "south" as you cross the center of a magnet.  The field lines just have a direction.  At any point anywhere around the magnet there is a detectable field around the magnet.  The magnetic field is a vector, it has magnitude and direction.  We have simply adopted a convention for a bar magnet to designate the magnetic field as being "north" or "south."  But the truth is the only thing there is is magnitude and direction.

Take the example of Kenny and his bean sprout growing experiments.  He claimed something like seeds grown under the influence of a north field grow better than the seeds grown under the influence of a south field.  I don't think he provided any specifics beyond that but I'm not sure.

Here is the problem:  If you point the north end of a magnet at the seeds, and the magnet is under the seeds, it will be the same a pointing the south end of a magnet at the seeds when the magnet is over the seeds.

(seeds)
  N
  S

is equal to

  N
  S
(seeds)

Do you see that?  What the seeds experience is a function of the pole pointed at the seeds and the position of the magnet.  I somehow doubt that Kenny ever specified the position.

Anyway, I am not shocked about this debate with Chris because I am jaded.  But believe me, it is absolutely shocking.  It's absolutely shocking how basic scientific concepts about electricity and magnetism can be used and abused by pulp pseudoscience writers out there.  The writers can be deluded themselves, or, they are just cynical manipulators of other people in search of a dollar.

Like, what the hell was that Bedini "windmill motor" all about that was eventually sold for scrap?   The answer is that it was junk scrap from the very beginning.  It was nothing more than a prop for a conference.  And like I always say, at those conferences they will not teach you how an inductor works, and by the same token they will presumably not teach you how magnetic fields work.

MileHigh

To be quite honest you people sound like good people, as nearly all are! You're all welcome to your opinions. Your opinions are yours and you have come to them for your own reasons!

MileHigh - You started off criticizing my work: "This is a totally retarded clip and you Chris Sykes should be ashamed for putting crap like this on YouTube.  Any astute 15-year-old kid that did well in grade 10 physics could refute this nonsense and prove it is not true by working with a test setup on a bench...."

Really, you don't understand it, and cant make it work because you don't understand it, so the first thing you do is criticize. A Natural reaction for people that don't understand! Natural for people that don't and or cant grasp Ideas and others Opinions that they have come to from their own Research, Deductions and Experiments.

My point is, for many years, I have shown effects and operations in devices that are IMPOSSIBLE in any Transformer using Your Conventional theories. People in History that you seem to idolise, only after death, that also have shown the same or similar effects and operations in devices that are IMPOSSIBLE in any Transformer using Your Conventional theories! And yet, here in this forum, you try to replicate, learn from and also at the same time build your own working units that NEVER WORK!

These behaviours are doomed for eternal failures and frustration. Behaviours that will endlessly ensure that you pay for Gas at the Bowser, Electricity at the Meter and in one hundred years time it will still not have changed!

Here in this forum, I have left Ideas, I hope I have sparked someone's intuition, helped others looking for answers and anything else that may be beneficial. Magnet Myths and Misconceptions will always exist well beyond the lifetime of this forum!

I will leave you with this: "When a Transformer is loaded, there is a NET ZERO Magnetic Field. This means the Ampere Turns on the primary are equal but opposite to the Ampere Turns on the secondary, or close to it."

Why? Why is this significant?


More debate is pointless!

Tinman, kindly show that you can make anything align to the supposed magnetic lines of force in your diagram.

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 04, 2015, 12:25:07 AM
To be quite honest you people sound like good people, as nearly all are! You're all welcome to your opinions. Your opinions are yours and you have come to them for your own reasons!

MileHigh - You started off criticizing my work: "This is a totally retarded clip and you Chris Sykes should be ashamed for putting crap like this on YouTube.  Any astute 15-year-old kid that did well in grade 10 physics could refute this nonsense and prove it is not true by working with a test setup on a bench...."

Really, you don't understand it, and cant make it work because you don't understand it, so the first thing you do is criticize. A Natural reaction for people that don't understand! Natural for people that don't and or cant grasp Ideas and others Opinions that they have come to from their own Research, Deductions and Experiments.

My point is, for many years, I have shown effects and operations in devices that are IMPOSSIBLE in any Transformer using Your Conventional theories. People in History that you seem to idolise, only after death, that also have shown the same or similar effects and operations in devices that are IMPOSSIBLE in any Transformer using Your Conventional theories! And yet, here in this forum, you try to replicate, learn from and also at the same time build your own working units that NEVER WORK!

These behaviours are doomed for eternal failures and frustration. Behaviours that will endlessly ensure that you pay for Gas at the Bowser, Electricity at the Meter and in one hundred years time it will still not have changed!

Here in this forum, I have left Ideas, I hope I have sparked someone's intuition, helped others looking for answers and anything else that may be beneficial. Magnet Myths and Misconceptions will always exist well beyond the lifetime of this forum!

I will leave you with this: "When a Transformer is loaded, there is a NET ZERO Magnetic Field. This means the Ampere Turns on the primary are equal but opposite to the Ampere Turns on the secondary, or close to it."

Why? Why is this significant?

In an ideal transformer "close to it" applies. This is ordinary and expected behavior of a transformer.  It's a good thing too, because otherwise transformers would have to be much larger.  Why do you think this ordinary and expected behavior is special?

Quote


More debate is pointless!

Quote from: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 12:25:20 AM
Kindly show that you can make anything align to the supposed magnetic lines of force in your diagram.

Are you refering to me Mark?
First up,there are NO magnetic field lines of force-only a magnetic field.The strength of that field is as i have pictured it in my diagram. I can see once again i will be spending my time on something you could perform your self.No feromagnetic materia is attracted(or has a very weak attraction) to the center of a magnet where my lines cross.

@MarkE

I would like you to take some time and draw up an electromagnet the shape of a rod magnet-say 3 inches long and 1/2 inch in diameter for the core material. This will of course have the conductive wire wrapped around it. You will need 3 pictures/diagrams of this very same electromagnet. I would then like you to show the magnetic field building up around that electromagnet in three stages from the instant a current is applied to the inductor-i want to see this magnetic field build around the inductor. I know this happens at or close to the speed of light,but lets devide that by 3.
So we will have in the first diagram the field just starting to emerge,then the second diagram will show it half way built to its full potential,and the third will show the full field and strength of that field. I will then show and explain why there is no magnetic field at the cenetr point of that inductor/electromagnet between the two pole's.

I have done many experiments for you and others,so i hope you can take the time to draw these 3 simple diagrams.

P.S-you may use your fictional lines of force,and flow arrows for this experiment.

Brad

Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 12:33:53 AM
Are you refering to me Mark?
First up,there are NO magnetic field lines of force-only a magnetic field.The strength of that field is as i have pictured it in my diagram. I can see once again i will be spending my time on something you could perform your self.No feromagnetic materia is attracted(or has a very weak attraction) to the center of a magnet where my lines cross.

So what denotes the intensity and orientation of the field in your diagram?  Is intensity the  distance from the dipole axis?

As to the claim: 

Quote

QuoteNo feromagnetic materia is attracted(or has a very weak attraction) to the center of a magnet where my lines cross.

I can suggest several tests that will demonstrate that the field produced by your magnet is in fact quite strong in that region.  Here is one:

Take a piece of paper and an ordinary compass outside the strong influence of any magnets.  Mark on the paper the two compass axes:  North-South and East-West.  Next move the compass away and place a dipole magnet that is at least four times as long as the compass diameter and place that magnet on the East-West line on your paper.  Now, place the compass near the mid point of your magnet.  Does the compass return to align to the North-South line on your paper as it did when it was outside the influence of your magnet?  If as you assert the magnetic field strength has fallen to zero in that region, what is holding your compass pointing along the East - West line?  Move the magnet away from the compass.  Does the compass now return to aligning to the North-South line?  What can we conclude from the fact that the compass aligns to magnet axis that is perpendicular to the earth's magnetic North-South line even smack in the middle of the magnet where you contend the field strength has fallen to zero?

Quote from: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 02:12:31 AM
So what denotes the intensity and orientation of the field in your diagram?  Is intensity the  distance from the dipole axis?


Take a piece of paper and an ordinary compass outside the strong influence of any magnets.  Mark on the paper the two compass axes:  North-South and East-West.  Next move the compass away and place a dipole magnet that is at least four times as long as the compass diameter and place that magnet on the East-West line on your paper.  Now, place the compass near the mid point of your magnet.  Does the compass return to align to the North-South line on your paper as it did when it was outside the influence of your magnet?  If as you assert the magnetic field strength has fallen to zero in that region, what is holding your compass pointing along the East - West line?  Move the magnet away from the compass.  Does the compass now return to aligning to the North-South line?  What can we conclude from the fact that the compass aligns to magnet axis that is perpendicular to the earth's magnetic North-South line even smack in the middle of the magnet where you contend the field strength has fallen to zero?

I already answered that question,and you either didnt read my reply,or once gain you are trying to push my buttons-so to speak.

Once again,which end of the compass needle would point to a region that has no magnetic field? The compass needles magnetic poles are simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet-regardless of how far away each pole may be. I can get a compass needle to swing toward a magnets pole over a foot away-so once again,your experiment is nul and void.

Now ,are you going to take the time and draw those 3 diagrams i requested from you?. Do you have the time to do that,as you expect people like me to have the time to try different experiments for you.

I would also like to add that an electromagnets field shape is a little different due to the magnetic field produced around the conducting wire,and is more of a peanut shape-see pic bellow. Due to the magnetic field around the conducting wire,the field at the center of the magnets core(between each pole end) ,dose not completely fold back into the core.The region circled in green represents the strongest field concentration in an electromagnet,and is not confined within the core like a PM's field is at the same point.

Edit-the field shape line actually looks more black than blue,but it is the peanut/dog bone shapes line.

Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 03:36:57 AM
I already answered that question,and you either didnt read my reply,or once gain you are trying to push my buttons-so to speak.

Once again,which end of the compass needle would point to a region that has no magnetic field? The compass needles magnetic poles are simply being attracted to the opposite poles of the magnet-regardless of how far away each pole may be. I can get a compass needle to swing toward a magnets pole over a foot away-so once again,your experiment is nul and void.

Now ,are you going to take the time and draw those 3 diagrams i requested from you?. Do you have the time to do that,as you expect people like me to have the time to try different experiments for you.

Tinman if the magnetic field were null at the dipole center as the Figure 8 claim requires then there would be nothing opposing the earth's magnetic field and the compass needle would align to the earth's field perpendicular to the dipole that is on the east-west line.  Try the experiment.  You will find that the conventional view prevails. 

Quote from: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 05:04:02 AM
Tinman if the magnetic field were null at the dipole center as the Figure 8 claim requires then there would be nothing opposing the earth's magnetic field and the compass needle would align to the earth's field perpendicular to the dipole that is on the east-west line.  Try the experiment.  You will find that the conventional view prevails.

Like i said-the compass needle is only being attracted to the strongest magnetic attraction force/fields. Of course if i move the PM far enough away,the needle will point to magnetic north,otherwise we'd have a compass that points to every ones magnets. Im guessing at this point you are not going to draw the three simple diagrams i asked of you,despit the fact that i have done endless experiments for you and others,not to mention the cash forked out. How much time would it take you to do this? If three is to much,then draw just one electromagnet and it's(what you call)field lines,and flow direction arrows.-->Is this to much to ask?.

Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 01:01:45 AM
@MarkE

I would like you to take some time and draw up an electromagnet the shape of a rod magnet-say 3 inches long and 1/2 inch in diameter for the core material. This will of course have the conductive wire wrapped around it. You will need 3 pictures/diagrams of this very same electromagnet. I would then like you to show the magnetic field building up around that electromagnet in three stages from the instant a current is applied to the inductor-i want to see this magnetic field build around the inductor. I know this happens at or close to the speed of light,but lets devide that by 3.
So we will have in the first diagram the field just starting to emerge,then the second diagram will show it half way built to its full potential,and the third will show the full field and strength of that field. I will then show and explain why there is no magnetic field at the cenetr point of that inductor/electromagnet between the two pole's.

I have done many experiments for you and others,so i hope you can take the time to draw these 3 simple diagrams.

P.S-you may use your fictional lines of force,and flow arrows for this experiment.

Brad

Depending on what is used for the core, the timescale will have to be much, much longer to see anything worthwhile.  We cannot instantaneously change the current in any circuit.  We can apply voltages with very high dV/dt's and once the voltage builds to a large value then the di/dt can become big.  The current will then build as long as we allow until ultimately being limited by the combined coil and circuit resistance.  Depending on the core material, the net magnetic field will either track the current (air core, or approximately with high resistance core), or lag due to eddy currents.  Both situations are depicted below.  If you are concerned with transmission line effects, then a wound coil masks those.  If you want to see something interesting in ns time frames then modeling a microstrip trace over a ground plane will do the job.  If you are going to measure transmission line effects at ns and ps scales then you will need an expensive time domain reflectometer.

Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 05:15:13 AM
Like i said-the compass needle is only being attracted to the strongest magnetic attraction force/fields.

No the compass needle is acted upon by the vector sum of all fields it is exposed to.  Any misalignment with the net field imposes a torque on the compass needle that in the steady state it will closely align.

Quote
Of course if i move the PM far enough away,the needle will point to magnetic north,otherwise we'd have a compass that points to every ones magnets.

Which is exactly why an experiment where we place the test magnet orthogonally to the earth's magnetic north-south line.

QuoteIm guessing at this point you are not going to draw the three simple diagrams i asked of you,despit the fact that i have done endless experiments for you and others,not to mention the cash forked out. How much time would it take you to do this? If three is to much,then draw just one electromagnet and it's(what you call)field lines,and flow direction arrows.-->Is this to much to ask?.

Done in the post above.

So the below pic is depicting the magnetic field as you know it?

Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 07:08:07 AM
So the below pic is depicting the magnetic field as you know it?

As it is for a solenoid coil or bar or cylinder PM magnet magnetized through its legnth.

Quote from: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 07:19:19 AM
As it is for a solenoid coil or bar or cylinder PM magnet magnetized through its legnth.

Below is a pic,and we have a thin pancake coil that can slide from one end of the electromagnet to the other(electromagnet passes through the center of the pancake coil). We are supplying the electromagnet with a DC wave current(like an AC wave,but with a 0 to 6 volt P/P) Where would the maximum voltage(maximum amplitude) be achieved over the 100 ohm resistor- point A,point B or point C.?

Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 07:28:11 AM
Below is a pic,and we have a thin pancake coil that can slide from one end of the electromagnet to the other(electromagnet passes through the center of the pancake coil). We are supplying the electromagnet with a DC wave current(like an AC wave,but with a 0 to 6 volt P/P) Where would the maximum voltage(maximum amplitude) be achieved over the 100 ohm resistor- point A,point B or point C.?

You have built a transformer.  The coupling coefficient will be highest at the center of the dipole where the magnetic field is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the pick-up coil as opposed to the ends where the field curls substantially.  Depending on the time scale, there could be a big difference between the 0-6V-0 ... voltage waveform and the current waveform.  As to where you will get the maximum reading across a 100 Ohm or any other specific value resistor load depends on among other things the impedance match between that resistor and the reflected impedance back to the power source.  If you want to find out where the field is the strongest, then you need a variable resistor load.  You would then adjust that resistance to find the maximum power point at each location and then compare those power levels to find where the coupling is greatest.

Quote from: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 07:47:20 AM
You have built a transformer.  The coupling coefficient will be highest at the center of the dipole where the magnetic field is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the pick-up coil as opposed to the ends where the field curls substantially.  Depending on the time scale, there could be a big difference between the 0-6V-0 ... voltage waveform and the current waveform.  As to where you will get the maximum reading across a 100 Ohm or any other specific value resistor load depends on among other things the impedance match between that resistor and the reflected impedance back to the power source.  If you want to find out where the field is the strongest, then you need a variable resistor load.  You would then adjust that resistance to find the maximum power point at each location and then compare those power levels to find where the coupling is greatest.

Cool
Now please tell me why we generate no power from an inductor if we place the core of that inductor in the center of a magnets dipole on a rotor. So picture a rotor with PM's around it so as the dipole center of the magnets are in the center of the perimeter of the rotor,and we would have what we know as north on the top surface of the rotor,and south on the under side of the rotor.If the magnetic field is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the pick-up coil as you stated,why is no power produced by the inductor/generating coil?.

Quote from: MarkE on January 04, 2015, 07:47:20 AM
You have built a transformer. 

Yes,i know i have built a transformer. But this one we can move the secondary along the field produced by the primary.

Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 07:28:11 AM
Below is a pic,and we have a thin pancake coil that can slide from one end of the electromagnet to the other(electromagnet passes through the center of the pancake coil). We are supplying the electromagnet with a DC wave current(like an AC wave,but with a 0 to 6 volt P/P) Where would the maximum voltage(maximum amplitude) be achieved over the 100 ohm resistor- point A,point B or point C.?

You will obtain the highest voltage reading at point B, but not because of maximal coupling. It comes down to net flux.

At the ends of the coil, positions A and C, the net flux passing through your pickup coil will be significantly lower than what passes through in the middle. The reason being because at the ends, the curling flux has not diverged that much, and most of it will pass through the pickup coil. Therefore, there will be two flux paths (roughly the same net magnitude) passing through the pickup coil, but in opposing directions, largely canceling each other out.

In the middle position point B, the flux density outside the coil is significantly lower (due to the curl) so there will be a higher net flux passing through the pickup coil in this case.

In both cases, all the flux generated within the coil diameter passes through the pickup coil.

Quote from: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 12:02:45 AM
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428891/#msg428891

@MileHigh,

I can help! I live on Calle Hidalgo in Jaco, Costa Rica. Try and bring your own cowardly ass down here for a fist fight!

Quote from: synchro1 on January 04, 2015, 11:52:42 AM
@MileHigh,

I can help! I live on Calle Hidalgo in Jaco, Costa Rica. Try and bring your own cowardly ass down here for a fist fight!

http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428894/#msg428894

We need to understand where we are trying to get energy from.

What is the geometric configuration of a field line.

What are eddy currents and how do they react to the field line.

Tinman:

Good on you for stating the obvious:  There is no Bloch Wall at the center of a magnet.

You stated that there is no magnetic field alongside the center of a long bar magnet.  MarkE showed you how you can do a compass test to confirm that there is a magnetic field there.  I think the mistake that you are making is that you will not feel any attraction at the center of a long bar magnet if you place a piece of ferrite or metal in that place.  You can have situations where there is no attraction felt and there still is a magnetic field present.  It's because the magnetic field is parallel to the magnet and there is no net pull towards either pole on the ferrite or piece of metal.  It's the same thing for the iron filings.  The majority of the iron filings are not attracted to either pole of the magnet.  The majority of the iron filings experience what looks like a linear magnetic field.  They line up with the magnetic field to "fall" into their position of minimum magnetic potential energy but they are not pulled towards either pole.

Here are two clips about deriving the magnetic field for a solenoid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c6fRmyh4q8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXVuHpUucc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBXVuHpUucc)

MileHigh

Chris:

I guess that you have left this thread.  I just wanted to comment again how sad it is that you can only draw parallels to other situations to supposedly back up your claim that there is a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  It even started to get loopy when you showed pictures of ferrofluid in action as "proof" of the existence of a Bloch wall.

You really did not advance your case at all.  What you tried to show was not scientific at all, and yet you claimed that you were the one being scientific.

You have built up walls around yourself with respect to this Bloch Wall nonsense.  I asked you repeatedly to explain what was going on in the magnet itself and you failed to do that.

This reminds me of cases where someone's understanding of a coil has been corrupted by the Bedini gang.  You try to explain to them what is going on when the coil discharges and they just put their blinders on and cover their ears and say, "radiant energy."  Or they say things like the pulse is "just voltage and no current" when in fact by definition the pulse is a pulse of current.

Do what you want to do, but at this point it's almost like you are a poster boy for how to go about doing things the wrong way.  You have been corrupted by non-scientific cheap pulp pseudoscience and that's most unfortunate.

The longer you keep playing with circuits, the more you start to see how things fit less and less into your electronics pseudoscience world.  Hopefully one day that will hit critical mass and you will realize the error of your ways.

MileHigh

If electrons spin around the magnetic field line they cannot run together side by side if spinning in the same direction.
It works like gears, the spin induces eddy currents that will allow the fields to run side by side.

So what happens if we create a gen that allows the earths magnetic field to lock onto the gen.

If the configuration is correct we can get a lock, then we can pull energy from the planets magnetic field.

Quote from: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 12:03:16 PM
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428894/#msg428894

Let me further advise you Mister "No Bloch Wall", that I am a "Grand Master" of Chinese "White Crane" school of internal boxing, and have won most of my fights!


'Most Hated Man on the Internet' found in Fresno:
  by KFSN – Fresno  3:35 mins 


Charles C. Johnson has won awards for his reporting, but he's also been ridiculed in the mainstream media. A New York Times columnist recently called him a "Troll on Steroids".

You guy's need to quit squabbling like school children an pay attention.
Sit up straight and pay attention before you get sent to the principles office.

Pay attention and use your head for something besides a hat rack.

What we end up with is north field lines with virtual souths and south field lines with virtual norths at each end of a magnet.

Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2015, 07:59:42 AM
Cool
Now please tell me why we generate no power from an inductor if we place the core of that inductor in the center of a magnets dipole on a rotor. So picture a rotor with PM's around it so as the dipole center of the magnets are in the center of the perimeter of the rotor,and we would have what we know as north on the top surface of the rotor,and south on the under side of the rotor.If the magnetic field is nearly perfectly perpendicular to the pick-up coil as you stated,why is no power produced by the inductor/generating coil?.

But you do.  Maxwell's equations work very very well.  If you have an experiment that is doing odd things we can look at that experiment and see what is going on with it.

Quote from: MileHigh on January 04, 2015, 12:23:12 PM
Tinman:

Good on you for stating the obvious:  There is no Bloch Wall at the center of a magnet.

  You can have situations where there is no attraction felt and there still is a magnetic field present.  It's because the magnetic field is parallel to the magnet and there is no net pull towards either pole on the ferrite or piece of metal. 

MileHigh

A magnetic field that dose not attract metal or ferrite ???
This is one magical magnetic field you guys have here ;) And it cannot induce magnetic flux into an inductor either-to produce power-->although Mark seems to think it can. Well we will have a look at that next weekend,but now !once again! i must hit the road for a few days.

We'll see you when you get back.

@MileHigh,

"Simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

The Bloch Wall is more then a parallel field and has "Lateral Dimensions" measured by neutron scattering.

Once again the definition"

"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch".

A NARROW REGION! This area has a width and thickness and has been measured with great accuracy. Below can you see where it measures at 2um from neutron scattering experiments. I can produce volumes of test data to support this fact. MileHigh, MarkE and TinselKoala are three bullshit peas in a pod..

I need one of them ipads for when im on the road ,this phone screen to bloody small.
I have come up with a doozy idea as to how we can see the exact field shape of a PM. This I will do right after theo's free heat generating bismuth do'hicky experiment..I am about 1100km away from my workshop ATM, but should be home by the weekend, when I will whip up a quick demo of the non generating field.
@MarkE
What are the arrows on the field lines supose to represent-the flow of what?

I see you are still doing what you do best, Synchro: Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

See if you can find such a photomicrograph that shows a "Bloch Wall" running along the center of a permanent magnet. Then try to explain why, when you cut a PM in half along the center, you get NOT two "monopole" magnets but rather two ordinary bipolar magnets, each with what you wrongly call a "Bloch wall" in their centers. It's a funny kind of "wall" that splits and moves just because you have cut along where you thought it was.

As MH told you earlier, Bloch walls are actually just what your photomicrographs show: Domain boundaries. And he has also told you the truth: In Permanent Magnets, most of the domains are oriented in the _same direction_ , not randomly like the images you have presented. Bloch walls exist between all the tiny magnetic domains that are randomly oriented, not along the "equator" of permanent magnets.

Quote from: synchro1 on January 04, 2015, 11:53:37 PM
@MileHigh,

"Simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

The Bloch Wall is more then a parallel field and has "Lateral Dimensions" measured by neutron scattering.

Once again the definition"

"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch".

A NARROW REGION! This area has a width and thickness and has been measured with great accuracy. Below can you see where it measures at 2um from neutron scattering experiments. I can produce volumes of test data to support this fact. MileHigh, MarkE and TinselKoala are three bullshit peas in a pod..

    Koala,
            If we made a hypothetical permanent magnet out of individual atoms would
they all line up or would there be a "fault" somewhere in the middle?
                         John.

An other aspect that I want to mention is:


there are two modes of activity of permanent magnets. One is the Seeking mode and the other one is the Jet Stream mode. A pole is always trying to connect to an opposite pole. If it can't, it will use the surrounding air to link with its own opposite pole. Which is very "unsatisfying". This way the common iron filing images are made.


This trough-the-air-link is so unsatisfying that the poles keep on seeking for a better link.


If we introduce a piece of iron now, stick it to one pole, the pole loves the permeability and seeks for opposite poles in every corner of the iron.
We stick a nail to the other end of the iron, the pole now even seeks in the entire nail, although airgaps and distance naturally lower the strength.
We stick a 2nd magnet to the iron, with the same pole. Now they share the iron, are both seeking, the nail sticks more. They do not want to be close to one another, but basicly they share the iron in their seeking.


Now we remove one magnet , turn it around and stick it to the iron with the other pole. Surprise. No seeking anymore. The nail drops off. The magnets build a rather compact path, now they're in Jet stream mode. Most of the iron became rather unmagnetical, IF both magnets have the same strength.


When you put two magnets on oneanother, NS NS, then they unite to one magnet the Bloch wall is located in the middle between them.


When you put them together NS SN, then the Bloch walls of the two remain in place.


BR

Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2015, 06:41:25 AM
I need one of them ipads for when im on the road ,this phone screen to bloody small.
I have come up with a doozy idea as to how we can see the exact field shape of a PM. This I will do right after theo's free heat generating bismuth do'hicky experiment..I am about 1100km away from my workshop ATM, but should be home by the weekend, when I will whip up a quick demo of the non generating field.
@MarkE
What are the arrows on the field lines supose to represent-the flow of what?

They indicate orientation.

Quote from: minnie on January 05, 2015, 07:17:46 AM


    Koala,
            If we made a hypothetical permanent magnet out of individual atoms would
they all line up or would there be a "fault" somewhere in the middle?
                         John.

If one could construct perfectly stacked crystals of magnetic material, then the domain walls would be lined up like paving stones.  If the material were not magnetized, then the orientation of each domain would be randomly rotated.  Magnetizing the material would progressively bring the domains into greater and greater alignment.

Quote from: minnie on January 05, 2015, 07:17:46 AM


    Koala,
            If we made a hypothetical permanent magnet out of individual atoms would
they all line up or would there be a "fault" somewhere in the middle?
                         John.

See MarkE's response above. With domains in the material, the "paving stones", which are much larger than individual atoms, you get something like this:

N-S|N-S|N-S|.... and so on, like a chain of tiny magnets all stuck together. Each "N-S" pair represents a single "paving stone" and the "|" symbol represents a true Bloch wall, as according to the definition, between the domains, I think. No "Bloch wall" _inside_ the individual domains, but Bloch walls between them, just as in the definition of the Bloch wall and in Synchro's photomicrograph images of randomly-aligned domains. And no special "Bloch wall" at the "equator" of a permanent magnet made up of mostly aligned domains. If there is a bulk, macroscopic "Bloch wall" anywhere, it is at the junction of _two_ permanent magnets stuck together in the usual way by mutual attraction of unlike poles. This does not represent the situation at the "waist" of an individual permanent magnet, though.

For individual atoms the magnetic dipole is formed by the spin of unpaired electrons in specific outer shells (electron orbitals). "Unpaired" because the normal pairing of opposite-spinning electrons in a single orbital causes their fields to cancel.  The "domain" is a much larger region where the atoms are aligned so that all or most of the electron spins are in the same direction, reinforcing each other and creating "mini-permanent magnets" which are the domains themselves. In an unmagnetized material these domains are themselves randomly oriented, even though within the domains the individual unpaired electron spins of the atoms concerned are aligned. To magnetize such a material one brings the domains into alignment like MarkE's paving stones, by any of a number of means. You can physically align a piece of the material to an external field, even the Earth's relatively weak field, and start aligning domains by striking the stuff with a hammer, even. Or you can supply a stronger pulsed external field and align the domains that way. In a "soft" magnetic material the domains are easy to align and easy to "unalign" again. In a "hard" material they stay aligned even when the original aligning field is removed.

Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2015, 06:41:25 AM
I need one of them ipads for when im on the road ,this phone screen to bloody small.
I have come up with a doozy idea as to how we can see the exact field shape of a PM. This I will do right after theo's free heat generating bismuth do'hicky experiment..I am about 1100km away from my workshop ATM, but should be home by the weekend, when I will whip up a quick demo of the non generating field.
@MarkE
What are the arrows on the field lines supose to represent-the flow of what?

As MarkE said, they represent "orientation", and the concentration represents "strength". But orientation of what? Strength of what? As you know, the field lines are just a convenient way of representing "something" and have no "real" existence, just like the elevation lines on a topographical map. On the topo map, the elevation contours tell you how steep the slope is in reality (by their 'bunching up') and the tiny numbers along them tell you the direction of the slope: that is, they tell you which way and how fast a "test particle" like a beachball will roll in the real terrain. For magnetic field lines, the arrow tells you in which direction a "test particle" -- here a hypothetical "magnetic monopole" -- would move, or how a tiny bipolar magnet like a compass needle would align, and the concentration or bunching of the field lines tell you how strongly such a test particle would move.  The magnetic field doesn't actually "flow", just as nothing flows on a topo map, and just as a road doesn't "go" anywhere. Test particles like beachballs, monopole magnetic particles, and road-trains "flow" along the real stationary elevation change, the stationary field lines, and the stationary road.

Quote from: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 09:24:22 AM
If one could construct perfectly stacked crystals of magnetic material, then the domain walls would be lined up like paving stones.  If the material were not magnetized, then the orientation of each domain would be randomly rotated.  Magnetizing the material would progressively bring the domains into greater and greater alignment.

Just to add a bit to what Mark said:  If you can imagine an "ideal" metallic crystal lattice, it would have no imperfections at all.  That means a perfect 3D arrangement of atoms, like a theoretical perfect diamond.  So you have your "paving stones" of individual magnetic domains within this "perfect diamond."  As you apply a perfectly uniform magnetic field to the paving stones, then you would start to get the merging of individual magnetic domains into larger magnetic domains.  In other words, the Bloch walls between individual magnetic domains would start to disappear.  At the limit, the entire magnetic crystal lattice would become a single domain.  That would represent a perfectly magnetized small crystal of metallic atoms where every single atomic magnetic dipole has the same orientation.

As was stated, every magnet has millions or billions of magnetic domains where the majority of the magnetic domains are oriented in the same direction.  Every magnet is not not a perfect metallic crystal lattice.  That is a description of the fine-grained architecture of any magnet.

Now, when it comes to the deluded folks that talk about a "Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet," they never even discuss the fine-grained architecture of a magnet.  It's possible that they agree with the fine-grained architecture.  It's just as possible that they are not even thinking about this because they never mention it.  So ignorance strikes again.

So now let's shift our discussion to the incorrect notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  What happens at this falsely imagined Bloch wall?   Well, as you can see I asked but I was unable to get a straight answer.

Here is a regular magnet:   [S>>>>>N]  The chevrons ('arrows') represent the majority of the magnetic domains lined up in the same direction.

Here is what I can only imagine that a magnet with a Bloch wall at the center looks like because the people that claim there is a Bloch wall at the center won't tell me:   [S>>>>|<<<<S]

As you can see, I am suggesting that the magnetic domains change direction by 180 degrees for a hypothetical Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.   The problem is that this makes no sense at all, and represents two sets of magnetic domains in opposition to each other resulting in mostly self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

This whole notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a magnet is a ridiculous nonsensical farce and is just another kind of "delayed Lenz effect" sickness.  It's just a mixture of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity masquerading as "a new alternative way of looking at things."

When John Bedini explains to a crowd of grown men gathered around him at a conference that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet and they all just nod in agreement, then he knows that he has bunch of suckers standing around him and chances are he can say just about anything to them so that they end up buying another useless DVD.

MileHigh

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2015, 07:01:31 AM
I see you are still doing what you do best, Synchro: Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

See if you can find such a photomicrograph that shows a "Bloch Wall" running along the center of a permanent magnet. Then try to explain why, when you cut a PM in half along the center, you get NOT two "monopole" magnets but rather two ordinary bipolar magnets, each with what you wrongly call a "Bloch wall" in their centers. It's a funny kind of "wall" that splits and moves just because you have cut along where you thought it was.

As MH told you earlier, Bloch walls are actually just what your photomicrographs show: Domain boundaries. And he has also told you the truth: In Permanent Magnets, most of the domains are oriented in the _same direction_ , not randomly like the images you have presented. Bloch walls exist between all the tiny magnetic domains that are randomly oriented, not along the "equator" of permanent magnets.

@TinselKoala,


Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

"Ibid"  from an eccentric "Trash Harvester"!

Let's see what you make of it Einstien!

Abstract: 

"Domain-wall structure in thin films with perpendicular anisotropy: Magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry study".

"Ferromagnetic domain patterns and three-dimensional domain-wall configurations in thin CoCrPt films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy were studied in detail by combining magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry with micromagnetic simulations. With the first method, lateral dimension of domains with alternative magnetization directions normal to the surface and separated by domain walls in 20-nm-thick CoCrPt films were determined in good agreement with micromagnetic simulations. Quantitative analysis of data on reflectometry shows that domain walls consist of a Bloch wall in the center of the thin film, which is gradually transformed into a pair of Néel caps at the surfaces. The width and in-depth thickness of the Bloch wall element, transition region, and Néel caps are found consistent with micromagnetic calculations. A complex structure of domain walls serves to compromise a competition between exchange interactions, keeping spins parallel, magnetic anisotropy orienting magnetization normal to the surface, and demagnetizing fields, promoting in-plane magnetization. It is shown that the result of such competition strongly depends on the film thickness, and in the thinner CoCrPt film (10 nm thick), simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.054425

1 MorePublished 28 August 2014
Received 9 May 2014
Revised 4 August 2014


©2014 American Physical Society                                              Here's the point:


                                                                           The "Bloch Wall' has physical dimensions:

                                                "Lateral dimensions of the "Bloch Wall" were measured by neutron scattering".

Quote from: MileHigh on January 05, 2015, 12:58:11 PM
Just to add a bit to what Mark said:  If you can imagine an "ideal" metallic crystal lattice, it would have no imperfections at all.  That means a perfect 3D arrangement of atoms, like a theoretical perfect diamond.  So you have your "paving stones" of individual magnetic domains within this "perfect diamond."  As you apply a perfectly uniform magnetic field to the paving stones, then you would start to get the merging of individual magnetic domains into larger magnetic domains.  In other words, the Bloch walls between individual magnetic domains would start to disappear.  At the limit, the entire magnetic crystal lattice would become a single domain.  That would represent a perfectly magnetized small crystal of metallic atoms where every single atomic magnetic dipole has the same orientation.

As was stated, every magnet has millions or billions of magnetic domains where the majority of the magnetic domains are oriented in the same direction.  Every magnet is not not a perfect metallic crystal lattice.  That is a description of the fine-grained architecture of any magnet.

Now, when it comes to the deluded folks that talk about a "Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet," they never even discuss the fine-grained architecture of a magnet.  It's possible that they agree with the fine-grained architecture.  It's just as possible that they are not even thinking about this because they never mention it.  So ignorance strikes again.

So now let's shift our discussion to the incorrect notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  What happens at this falsely imagined Bloch wall?   Well, as you can see I asked but I was unable to get a straight answer.

Here is a regular magnet:   [S>>>>>N]  The chevrons ('arrows') represent the majority of the magnetic domains lined up in the same direction.

Here is what I can only imagine that a magnet with a Bloch wall at the center looks like because the people that claim there is a Bloch wall at the center won't tell me:   [S>>>>|<<<<S]

As you can see, I am suggesting that the magnetic domains change direction by 180 degrees for a hypothetical Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.   The problem is that this makes no sense at all, and represents two sets of magnetic domains in opposition to each other resulting in mostly self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

This whole notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a magnet is a ridiculous nonsensical farce and is just another kind of "delayed Lenz effect" sickness.  It's just a mixture of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity masquerading as "a new alternative way of looking at things."

When John Bedini explains to a crowd of grown men gathered around him at a conference that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet and they all just nod in agreement, then he knows that he has bunch of suckers standing around him and chances are he can say just about anything to them so that they end up buying another useless DVD.

MileHigh

Has the DVD been "purified" by John Bedini's permanent magnet CD/DVD purifier?

Quote from: synchro1 on January 05, 2015, 01:35:28 PM
@TinselKoala,


Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

"Ibid"  from an eccentric "Trash Harvester"!

Let's see what you make of it Einstien!

Abstract: 

"Domain-wall structure in thin films with perpendicular anisotropy: Magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry study".

"Ferromagnetic domain patterns and three-dimensional domain-wall configurations in thin CoCrPt films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy were studied in detail by combining magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry with micromagnetic simulations. With the first method, lateral dimension of domains with alternative magnetization directions normal to the surface and separated by domain walls in 20-nm-thick CoCrPt films were determined in good agreement with micromagnetic simulations. Quantitative analysis of data on reflectometry shows that domain walls consist of a Bloch wall in the center of the thin film, which is gradually transformed into a pair of Néel caps at the surfaces. The width and in-depth thickness of the Bloch wall element, transition region, and Néel caps are found consistent with micromagnetic calculations. A complex structure of domain walls serves to compromise a competition between exchange interactions, keeping spins parallel, magnetic anisotropy orienting magnetization normal to the surface, and demagnetizing fields, promoting in-plane magnetization. It is shown that the result of such competition strongly depends on the film thickness, and in the thinner CoCrPt film (10 nm thick), simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.054425

1 MorePublished 28 August 2014
Received 9 May 2014
Revised 4 August 2014


©2014 American Physical Society                                              Here's the point:


                                                                           The "Bloch Wall' has physical dimensions:

                                                "Lateral dimensions of the "Bloch Wall" were measured by neutron scattering".

How do you think that anything in that cited quotation supports the idea of a "magnetic equator" in a permanent or electromagnet?

Quote from: MarkE on January 05, 2015, 02:05:40 PM
How do you think that anything in that cited quotation supports the idea of a "magnetic equator" in a permanent or electromagnet?

@MarkE,

Why not ask how it effects the price of camel milk in Timbuktu. Just another "Screwball"! Find how it does that on your own!

Quote from: synchro1 on January 05, 2015, 02:53:49 PM
@MarkE,

Why not ask how it effects the price of camel milk in Timbuktu. Just another "Screwball"! Find how it does that on your own!

I think that we can interpret that as an admission that you were wrong about the Bloch wall being at the center of a bar magnet.  It looks like you have been doing some serious online research about Bloch walls and did not find any references from legitimate sources to back up the claim that a Bloch wall exists at the center of a bar magnet.

Beyond that, all that you really have to do is put your brain in gear and THINK and understand to agree with the fact that there is no Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  The entire idea is nonsensical.

@TinselKoala, @MarkE, @MileHigh - I repeat what I said - Modern Science in different disciplines, today, don't agree with your Myths and Misconceptions on Magnets!

You are wrong about Magnets! Period.

No amount of Verbal Debate will prove other wise. East and West on a Compass represent the Equator just in-case previous diagrams have you confused.

I suggest you take some Physics 101 Classes or Astro-Physics 101!!!

Your Science is out-dated and incorrect!

Stop PREACHING Bad Science! Your opinions are yours! Stop trying to inject your opinions into people. Opinions are NOT SCIENCE!!!

Quote from: synchro1 on January 05, 2015, 02:53:49 PM
@MarkE,

Why not ask how it effects the price of camel milk in Timbuktu. Just another "Screwball"! Find how it does that on your own!

Kindly allow me to rephrase:  Please materially connect the contents of the citation to what you are attempting to argue.

Quote

Quote
Re: Magnet Myths and Misconceptions
« Reply #413 on: Today at 07:35:28 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: TinselKoala on Today at 01:01:31 PM

    I see you are still doing what you do best, Synchro: Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

    See if you can find such a photomicrograph that shows a "Bloch Wall" running along the center of a permanent magnet. Then try to explain why, when you cut a PM in half along the center, you get NOT two "monopole" magnets but rather two ordinary bipolar magnets, each with what you wrongly call a "Bloch wall" in their centers. It's a funny kind of "wall" that splits and moves just because you have cut along where you thought it was.

    As MH told you earlier, Bloch walls are actually just what your photomicrographs show: Domain boundaries. And he has also told you the truth: In Permanent Magnets, most of the domains are oriented in the _same direction_ , not randomly like the images you have presented. Bloch walls exist between all the tiny magnetic domains that are randomly oriented, not along the "equator" of permanent magnets.


@TinselKoala,


Misrepresenting the work of others, that you do not understand.

"Ibid"  from an eccentric "Trash Harvester"!

Let's see what you make of it Einstien!

Abstract:

"Domain-wall structure in thin films with perpendicular anisotropy: Magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry study".

"Ferromagnetic domain patterns and three-dimensional domain-wall configurations in thin CoCrPt films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy were studied in detail by combining magnetic force microscopy and polarized neutron reflectometry with micromagnetic simulations. With the first method, lateral dimension of domains with alternative magnetization directions normal to the surface and separated by domain walls in 20-nm-thick CoCrPt films were determined in good agreement with micromagnetic simulations. Quantitative analysis of data on reflectometry shows that domain walls consist of a Bloch wall in the center of the thin film, which is gradually transformed into a pair of Néel caps at the surfaces. The width and in-depth thickness of the Bloch wall element, transition region, and Néel caps are found consistent with micromagnetic calculations. A complex structure of domain walls serves to compromise a competition between exchange interactions, keeping spins parallel, magnetic anisotropy orienting magnetization normal to the surface, and demagnetizing fields, promoting in-plane magnetization. It is shown that the result of such competition strongly depends on the film thickness, and in the thinner CoCrPt film (10 nm thick), simple Bloch walls separate domains. Their lateral dimensions estimated from neutron scattering experiments agree with micromagnetic simulations".

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.90.054425

1 MorePublished 28 August 2014
Received 9 May 2014
Revised 4 August 2014


©2014 American Physical Society                                              Here's the point:


                                                                           The "Bloch Wall' has physical dimensions:

                                                "Lateral dimensions of the "Bloch Wall" were measured by neutron scattering".

Quote from: MileHigh on January 05, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
I think that we can interpret that as an admission that you were wrong about the Bloch wall being at the center of a bar magnet.  It looks like you have been doing some serious online research about Bloch walls and did not find any references from legitimate sources to back up the claim that a Bloch wall exists at the center of a bar magnet.

Beyond that, all that you really have to do is put your brain in gear and THINK and understand to agree with the fact that there is no Bloch wall at the center of a bar magnet.  The entire idea is nonsensical.

@MileHigh,

"This whole notion of a Bloch wall at the center of a magnet is a ridiculous nonsensical farce and is just another kind of "delayed Lenz effect" sickness".

Here you compound your bullshit. Why not include your "Mythbusted" Tesla series bifilar while you're at it?

Quote from: EMJunkie on January 05, 2015, 04:08:51 PM

@TinselKoala, @MarkE, @MileHigh - I repeat what I said - Modern Science in different disciplines, today, don't agree with your Myths and Misconceptions on Magnets!

You are wrong about Magnets! Period.

No amount of Verbal Debate will prove other wise. East and West on a Compass represent the Equator just in-case previous diagrams have you confused.

I suggest you take some Physics 101 Classes or Astro-Physics 101!!!

Your Science is out-dated and incorrect!

Stop PREACHING Bad Science! Your opinions are yours! Stop trying to inject your opinions into people. Opinions are NOT SCIENCE!!!

A cogent argument goes along the lines of:  Y evidence supports X, or Y evidence refutes X.  Shouting insults on a message board does not make a cogent argument.