Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 13, 2019, 01:49:19 AM

At a distance, all magnetic fields permeate everything.
At close range, the dominant field rules the volume of space.


Just as our compasses point towards the North,
Instead of up at the moons greater magnetic field.


The smaller magnets around the 'tractor beam' dominate over the larger center magnet
until it gets in range, then the repulsion becomes effective.


If you get close enough to the moon your compass will point towards it.
There is a point in between where the 2 fields will balance out and there is equal attraction
and repulsion just like the 'tractor beam'.


Reverse the tractor beam so you have repulsion outside and attraction inside.
With the proper proportions it works exactly the same.

The truth about the moon's magnetic field: [size=78%]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_the_Moon[/size]

I've had magnets that have had their fields negated, but never pole reversal.
The field is the same ,but becomes much weaker.
artv

By asymmetry i mean difference of the magnetic field near the pole, from spherical. In the Coulomb model and in an inverse square model of the magnetic field, the field is perfectly spherical near a pole. The Coulomb model is a model for electrostatic fields, but Coulomb model also means an inverse square model of a field, and such simplified model for a magnetic field.

One may say irregularity of a field. While in a way correct, one may argue that the magnetic field is completely regular, when it corresponds to the Gauss equation. But in spite of that, such field may not be completely spherical near a pole.

Thus i say asymmetry, meaning difference from the perfect symmetry of spherical, near the pole. I don't know how else to say that. By asymmetry i don't mean any asymmetry, but difference from the spherical symmetry provided by the Coulomb model. Should i say non-Coulomb asymmetry, non-Coulomb irregularity, or non-inverse-square asymmetry? That would sound a kind of inelegant.

By the Gauss equation, a part of the Maxwell equations, they changed peoples thinking the way that when the field lines are in loop, the magnetic field is regular. That is when we move by loops, all is regular, and it is normal to move by loops, and think about loops. But such field is not regular, when we move like by circle around the pole.

Quote from: ayeaye on December 12, 2019, 04:21:47 PM
And how do you know?

I know because I understand it.  Its about balance between attracting and repelling forces giveing rise to
a net neutrality along some vectors.


"If you claim that one field shields another field, this is a grandiose claim to make,"

BS 

No this is Not what I have claimed.  You choice of words reveals your confusion / misunderstanding
in the matter.

"and then you should also have at least some kind of theoretical explanation how one field can shield another field. And unless you really know it, i don't think that you can be sure that it doesn't involve asymmetry of the fields. "

As I said..
your misunderstanding, Not mine.

"Just a theoretical discussion, i don't see that you so far have shown that the effect in your and Citfta's experiments
is anything else than ordinary shielding."

                             Your use of the that phrase "ordinary shielding", is inappropriate in that it relly has no meaning / you have given no
                             explanation of "it"

          There are several aspects to WHAT I CONSIDER "ordinary shielding"

Examples

                Force is redirected

1. a sword impacts upon a "shield". 
  a.The force of the sword arrives / contacts as its sharp edge. This is a large force concentrated into a small surface area.
  b.The rigidity of the shield prevents the sword from penetrating.  The force it receives from the sword is spread out over
    a larger surface on the shields opposite side, where it is contact with the shield bearers arm. 
                       Like these magnet interactions I present.

               Or force is "dampened"

2.  Due to the shields mass, there is a resistance of the shield to acceleration.  The force is decreased in its amount translated
     to the shield bearers arm, as compared to, in the absence of the shield (inertial dampening).
                                   Different from these magnet interactions I present.

"So your bench has a precision 4 grams. Not enough i think to measure the interaction of the shields that i talked about,"
as by my estimations the precision needed for that is 1/10 grams. What concerns the precision of the bench, also consider that friction greatly increases when there are forces between the magnets, and precision likely greatly decreases. Saying that, i think that your bench is a good and very well made device."

OK

What concerns showing overunity, in case of interaction of magnets that i showed, all that is really necessary is to show that a magnet accelerates when it passes other magnet, no need in that case to measure forces. But this requires a very low friction, that may not be possible to achieve.

It is not only friction and too much energy necessary for moving with that friction in your and Citfta's experiments, it is worse. If it is just an ordinary shielding, then it shows no overunity, even when disregarding friction.

"It would be great if you and Cifta can show that there is something else than ordinary shielding, and there is some overunity, really great. But as i see it, so far nothing shows that it is anything else than ordinary shielding in your experiments, no measurements or anything else show that this is not the case. Make no mistake, i were happy if any experiment really did show overunity, even when disregarding friction."

So far all i can do, is to try to measure the asymmetry of the forces in the magnet, the only feasible way i know so far to show overunity in magnets in a fully measurable way. But forces are too small, if my spring scales anyhow enable to do that, and i'm much too poor to get any more precise instruments.

"Btw, you want me to see all your videos, but have you ever watched this video about my experiment  https://archive.org/details/Flcm3 ? I don't think so. And i showed elsewhere here, that this gain of energy is about asymmetry of the fields of the magnets, i also showed by a picture of iron filings such asymmetry on a magnet. This experiment was not fully measured, so no proof, true, but so are not your experiments."

I don't care if you watch  my videos or not, that is entirely up to you.
                              As I stated (3rd time now)  You have not understood these magnet interactions.

                                     The videos and drawings explain them to a large extent,
                                                 and give a basis for discussion.

What I care about is having an informed discussion.  I don't see that happening here with you.

                 With out your willingness to seek to understand them, There is no way, for a discussion of them.
                                  The" theory of their operation" is Newton's laws.

Ive done with all the magnet asymmetry  experiments for now, that I chose to explore, several years ago.
As you have said, not enough to over come friction / other problems.
     I wish you good luck and good hunting in your experiments.

Please don't use this topic to attract comments to your experiments / Ideas.

                               DO YOUR OWN TOPIC AND PLEASE STAY OFF OF THIS ONE,
                          UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THAT, YOU HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING OF IT.

       regards
             floor

Quote from: kolbacict on December 13, 2019, 04:10:27 AM
Can I re-magnetize it?
So that the poles are lined up differently?
Using a current pulse in a powerful coil?

Yes with a strong enough electromagnet you can reorient it