EDIT - Some mistakes have been corrected .
Maybe the magnetic-field is only the electric-field ( and sometimes it's effect on 'some things', is a result of it being combined with the atomic nucleic bonding force ) .
In the following, compare how static( not moving ) Electrets interact with :
- A Coreless-Electromagnet
- A Permanent-magnet
[ NOTE : Permanent-magnets are usually made from highly permeable metals, whereas Electromagnets can often just use copper, so maybe highly permeable metals have a stronger nucleic, central bonding force at the nucleus( center ) of atoms which keeps protons and neutrons together ]
- Coreless-Electromagnet explanation- a moving electric-field, which is, or is also, spinning around the cross-section of a DC-carrying-wire , inducing an illusionary magnetic-field( which is actually just another electric-field ) in other metallic objects, so that the electromagnet is actually picking up metal objects just by using electric-field attraction.
* - I assume static( not moving ) Electrets 'Do' interact with static Coreless-Electromagnets, like pushing away etc.
- Permanent-magnet explanation - a moving electric-field( from aligned spinning electrons ), which is also 'focusing'( like a vortex or something ) the central bonding force at the nucleus( center ) of atoms which keeps protons and neutrons together( and maybe even keeps the electron spinning around the nucleus, although yes, I know about positive and negative charges ),
So, that because it also includes the 'focused' central bonding force from the nucleus( center ) of atoms, that focused-central-nucleic force cancels-out( neutralizes ) the electric-field of the permanent-magnet , 'in terms' of it's ability to interact with static( not moving ) electrically-charged objects like Electrets.
* - I assume static( not moving ) Electrets 'Do Not' interact with static Permanent-magnets, like pushing away etc.
Look at diagrams( on the internet ) of the electric-field compared to the magnetic-field around a DC-current-carrying-wire, the magnetic-field spins around the cross-section of the wire, while the electric-field radiates( statically ? ) outwards from the center of the cross-section of the wire.
( I actually thought that the electric-field was supposed to be 'perpendicular' to the magnetic-field in a DC-current-carrying-wire, but on the diagrams that does not seem true )
I have a link to a webpage which showed photos of the electric-field around a permanent-magnet( or around a coil ), achieved by simply freezing the permanent-magnet( or coil ) in water, but the photos are no longer visible on the webpage, but I'm not sure if that supports what I'm saying.
Importantly, I assume that if you sweep a highly-charged-Electret past a sheet of copper at a high speed, that it will create electromagnetic-eddies on the sheet of copper, which by my explanation in this post, are actually only electric-field eddies ( maybe also containing some atomic central-nucleic force )
Corrected some errors and changed the title .
As far as I know there's no way of viewing( or detecting ) Electric-fields by using those cheap commonly available 'Magnetic-field-viewers' .
( so that doesn't help my argument , although I've not bothered to find out how they actually function )
However, what if the "Central bonding force at the nucleus( center ) of atoms" , which I said that is focused( like a vortex or something ) by the aligned spinning electrons in 'Permanent-magnets', what if that 'atomic-nucleic-bonding-force' is GRAVITY,
And because I explained that this happens more so in 'Permanent-magnets'( because of the high permeability of their material ), then it's logical that 'Permanent-magnets' would have the most noticeable visual interaction with other 'Permanent-magnets' and metals.
So, maybe 'Permanent-magnets' interaction with other 'Permanent-magnets' and metals is what we call GRAVITY.
Below is some of my previous post.
Quote from: postingsite on February 13, 2018, 02:52:28 PM
- Permanent-magnet explanation - a moving electric-field( from aligned spinning electrons ), which is also 'focusing'( like a vortex or something ) the central bonding force at the nucleus( center ) of atoms which keeps protons and neutrons together( and maybe even keeps the electron spinning around the nucleus, although yes, I know about positive and negative charges ),
Quote from: postingsite on February 14, 2018, 06:55:49 PM
So, maybe 'Permanent-magnets' interaction with other 'Permanent-magnets' and metals is what we call GRAVITY.
I wonder if you precisely measured the weight( mass ) of a Permanent-magnet with it's North pole facing to the centre of the earth, and then compare that with it's South pole facing to the centre of the earth, would there be any detectable difference .
* - The problem would be - 'what about all the sideways angles of the earths gravitational-field acting on the magnet .
However, in all Permanent-magnets , the field always flows right back into the magnet, from one pole to the other, so that may neutralize the experiment.
- But if so, should the Permanent-magnet then be weightless because of that, or, maybe because the field flows right back into the magnet, then the earth's-magnetic-field somehow treats the entire Permanent-magnet as a single proton or neutron .
( It's interesting with those old large garage-doors that use heavy-weights( instead of springs ) so that anyone can easily open or close those often huge doors, theoretically you could raise a skyscraper or large-rocket by that principle, although I'm not sure if it relates to the above )
What about if it was possible to build a Monopole-Permanent-magnet( some people have claimed to have made one ), would you get different results for the above experiment .
- Imagine a very long Bar-Permanent-magnet( Magnet B ) , and then onto one end of that Bar-Permanent-magnet, you attach a strong Permanent-magnet( Magnet B ) with it's pole facing N to N( or S to S ) in relation to the very long Bar-Permanent-magnet( Magnet A ), to neutralize that pole, that may get close to being a Monopole-Permanent-magnet.
( keep in mind that if Permanent-magnet( Magnet B ) is to strong, it could neutralize all of the first magnet , Permanent-magnet( Magnet B ) , so that there would be no magnet all.
Quote from: postingsite on February 15, 2018, 04:38:52 PM
( It's interesting with those old large garage-doors that use heavy-weights( instead of springs ) so that anyone can easily open or close those often huge doors, theoretically you could raise a skyscraper or large-rocket by that principle, although I'm not sure if it relates to the above )
What about if it was possible to build a Monopole-Permanent-magnet( some people have claimed to have made one ), would you get different results for the above experiment .
- Imagine a very long Bar-Permanent-magnet( Magnet B ) , and then onto one end of that Bar-Permanent-magnet, you attach a strong Permanent-magnet( Magnet B ) with it's pole facing N to N( or S to S ) in relation to the very long Bar-Permanent-magnet( Magnet A ), to neutralize that pole, that may get close to being a Monopole-Permanent-magnet.
( keep in mind that if Permanent-magnet( Magnet B ) is to strong, it could neutralize all of the first magnet , Permanent-magnet( Magnet B ) , so that there would be no magnet all.
The fact that there's an electromagnet( earths inner / outer core ) at the center if the earth, does not affect my argument.
And below, is my diagram to try and support my theory that the Magnetic-field( from Permanent-magnets at least ) may be the Gravitational-field .
( Although I can still think of arguments for why the Magnetic-field( from Permanent-magnets at least ) may be Electric-field )
As you can see in the diagram, comparing a counter-weighted-garage-door , to a Permanent-magnet.
The Monople example in the diagram is the method by which a Permanent-magnet may be able to have some ( or more ), or different, effect ( interaction ) with the Gravitational-field .
This old thread might be relevant. http://overunity.com/2485/magnetism-without-the-magnetic-field/msg33676/#msg33676 (http://overunity.com/2485/magnetism-without-the-magnetic-field/msg33676/#msg33676)
Another approach might be to model the electric field like a fluid flow, some sort of mysteriously electrified virtue continuously oozes out of charged particles then moves away at light speed. When this stuff reaches another charged particle, it exerts a force on it. Magnetic effects might just be a propagation delay effect of this electric flow. I have not done the fancy cipherin' on this approach to see if it actually works.
That other thread is very advanced .
Just noting, that my example of a garage-door which is counter-weighted with a weight weighing exactly the same as the garage-door, so that raising and lowering the door is equally easy, and the little force required would almost only depend on friction , theoretically you could spend all day raising and lowering a 50-story building with no effort at all .
I wonder how physics explains that one, other than simply counter-weight .
Below is a diagram I made of designs for making a Monopole( or close to )
Just as I sent my previous post 1/2 an hour a ago, I was reminded that SMOTS successfully eject the ball
So I wonder if that would be a perfect design for a Monopole
- a cross, hybrid , between a donut-shaped-magnet, and a cone-shaped-magnet, with the usual hollow-shaft that runs through the center of donut-shaped-magnets
The diagram below is only a side-view( so the visible central-hollow-shaft is just a see-through effect in that diagram )
( the exact proportions / ratios would actually have to be altered in this design, until a monopole effect is achieved )
Just to clarify, that my Monopole-Permanent-Magnet designs, may, or may not be the same thing as the standard definition of a magnetic-monopole , since, I sometimes think of the standard definition of a magnetic-monopole to be like a sphere ( like a proton ) radiating out a single field out in ALL directions, like a proton
Below, is a diagram of my version of the magnetic-field of my versions of Monopole-Permanent-Magnets
( NOTE - In the diagram, my designs for Monopole-Permanent-Magnets do not appear, to make it easier to see the monopole fields, I just show a normal 'Non-Monopole' Permanent-Magnet
I have three separate theories about what the magnetic-field may actually be :
- the electric-field
or
- gravity
or
- scalar-waves
____ ____ ____
My theory that the magnetic-field may be scalar-waves, is based on my theory that scalar-waves occur, EITHER,
- when 2 electric-fields collide against each other,
OR,
- when 2 electric-fields pull against each other.
However, I got the idea when I read that scalar-waves can be generated by crashing 2 opposing electrical-currents into each other in a single conducting-wire, I read it on the following website, but can no longer find the page( it's possible I don't remember correctly, and it may not have been on that website ) ,
www.cheniere.org
My theory on how scalar-waves can be generated may be different to what I read, since my theory is based on colliding or pulling electric-fields, rather than actual electric-current in a wire.
My theory is :
For Coreless-Electromagnets :
- When 2 electric-fields collide against each other, they send Pushing-Scalar-Waves( like direct-lines ) straight back into the 2 electrical wires, which is commonly called magnetic-repelling.
( in some circumstances this can generate additional electrical-current in the wires )
- When 2 electric-fields pull against each other, they send Pulling-Scalar-Waves( like direct-lines ) against the 2 electrical wires, which is commonly called magnetic-attraction
For Permanent-Magnets :
- My theory for Coreless-Electromagnets also applies to the electric-fields from the spinning electrons in Permanent-magnets .
My theory could also apply to very long distance AC current transmission, since a possible collision of currents resulting in scalar-waves could possibly generate surplus current, explaining why AC is often preferred for long distance current transmission .
____ ____ ____
So obviously the aim of my designs is to produce some type of magnetic beam / ray, just by using 'Permanent-Magnets', by not allowing the 2 poles of the permanent-magnet to connect with each other, as illustrated on my diagram in my post :
http://overunity.com/17606/does-the-magnetic-field-exist/msg516741/#msg516741
yes, that is already achieved( I think ? ) when you make a long magnet by allowing numerous smaller magnets to join together, however, the 2 poles of that final magnet still connect with each other.
If this was achieved( seems very difficult like everything on these overunity sites ), I can not actually work out what the effect would be
In my diagram below, I try and prevent the poles on 'Magnet-A' from connecting with each other by using the side magnets( 'Magnet-B', and 'Magnet-C' ), though obviously in 3d you'd need a minimum of 4 blocking / side-magnets.
Notice, in the diagram, 'Magnet-A' is only 1-cm long, while the blocking / side-magnets( 'Magnet-B', and 'Magnet-C' ) are 1-meter long , the question being, is there a length( ratios etc ) for the blocking / side-magnets( 'Magnet-B', and 'Magnet-C' ) , that could prevent the poles on 'magnet-A' from connecting with each other .
A simpler( and maybe more effective ) version is the other design in the diagram below, where 'Magnet-W' is inside the hollow shaft of 'Cylinder-Permanent-magnet-'Magnet-X'.
Updated This Post :
I just thought of one possible solution to my post 2 hours ago.
Below is my diagram again, so just seal of one end of 'Cylinder-Permanent-magnet-'Magnet-X'
The only problem with this solution is that it blocks the type of energy flow( from the external environment ? ) effect through the magnet that I was hoping for