The Primer Fields - Breakthrough in our understanding of magnetism

[Liberty]

Hi Liberty,
I think TK was trying to imply that when a soleniod coil is powered, it is like a bar magnet that produces its north and south poles.


@Tinselkoala,
Thanks for some info. Im not like you guys Guru's of science 

Yes, but I was hoping that he would take a stab at answering the question anyway...  Wondering if science has an answer to how a magnet really works, and if so, why a magnet doesn't deplete it's energy source and continues to emit a magnetic field. 

[TinselKoala]

Independent verification of the Davis model by Howard Johnson.

No, it's not.
You may also recall that Johnson's "motors" don't work.... unless your name is Mylow.

@crazy:
The north and south "poles" of a bar magnet arise from the same cause as the poles of a solenoid: charge in motion. In the case of the bar magnet the charges that are in motion are the unpaired electrons in certain orbitals of certain atoms, like iron. The electrons in their orbitals possess spin angular momentum. In bulk material that is unmagnetised the electron spins of many atoms are unaligned, but they can become aligned by various processes. The alignment comes from applying an external field of sufficient strength, or even mechanical vibration in the presence of a weaker field. But the field itself ultimately arises from the electron spins and orbital motions. The field lines of these tiny electron magnets go around the orbital motion in closed loops, just like the field of a wire only much smaller and weaker. In the case of the DC solenoid coil, we provide voltage which moves charge through the wire, but once the field is established, no power is lost to the field; the current flows and power is dissipated by the resistance of the wire according to Ohm's law. The steady field itself dissipates no power.

Thinking of "poles" of a bar magnet is verbally misleading. Think of a garden hose. It has two "poles" just like a bar magnet: water goes in one end and comes out the other (and ultimately loops through the external hydrologic cycle and makes it back to the beginning). What happens when you cut a garden hose in half? Do you now have a couple of "one ended" hoses?

If anyone tells you that they can explain how and why electrons orbit nuclei "perpetually", or why moving charge is always accompanied by a magnetic field..... don't believe them. The question is on the order of "why is there something, rather than nothing".  Why are energy levels quantized? Why is there air? What do women really want?

Please try to remember that "conventional" science understands magnetism and magnetic fields fairly well....well enough to work relative miracles of engineering with them, like loudspeakers, CRT displays, electric motors of all kinds (and very high efficiencies) and much much more. This fact alone is enough to refute speculative models like those of Davis and Johnson. If their models were true, all kinds of things we take for granted would not work, or would have to be designed very differently, and airliners and ships at sea would be getting lost all the time.

There are deep mysteries to be sure, like "why" does the electron keep spinning.... but once you can understand that the magnetic field itself doesn't take any energy to maintain, then it's a bit easier.  Again, consider the DC solenoid coil. Apply some voltage.... and some energy goes into setting up the field, so the current doesn't just appear instantly at its full value, it takes a bit of time to increase. This is because setting up the field is costly. Once the field is established it doesn't take any more energy to maintain and the current flows unimpeded. When the circuit is interrupted, the energy used to set up the field is returned as the current continues to try to flow in the same direction, making things like contact arcs or big spikes of voltage. Since we weren't around when the electrons started spinning, and we won't be around when they stop..... we don't get to see the energy required to set up the little fields of each spinning electron. We only see the energy needed to knock a bunch of little fields into alignment so that the bulk material has a big enough coherent field to be detected outside.

Now for the Zen: It's all one thing. Charge, motion, field: one thing. One. Motion is relative to a reference frame, one frame's magnetic field is another frame's electric field, charge is conserved.

[TechStuf]

No, it's not. You may also recall that Johnson's "motors" don't work.... unless your name is Mylow.

As we now have at minimum, 3 independent researchers who observed the same model, perhaps there is more than meets one's simple eye. 

It shouldn't take any serious researcher long with a bit of hand's on, to prove the archaic field model inadequate.  Man exploits quite well a host of physical realities without understanding really much at all about them.  One man's verification is another's wild supposition and history has proven that the twain really only meet briefly as one supplants the other.



TS

[gravityblock]

Any one have any luck finding these patents? It'd be great to understand how the bowl field emitters are magnetized.

I haven't had any luck finding those patents, however, here's another device patented by David LaPoint which may be helpful.  According to this patent, the bowl field emitters are more than likely magnetic arrays (halbach arrays), where one pole is internal and the opposite pole is external.  The bowls also use Macor, which is a machineable glass-ceramic developed and sold by Corning Inc. It is a white material that looks somewhat like porcelain. Macor has excellent thermal characteristics, acting as efficient insulation, and stable up to temperatures of 1000 °C, with very little thermal expansion or outgassing.  It is often used in high-temperature and/or high-vacuum environments, where dimensional stability and low outgassing are critical.   

Gravock

[TinselKoala]

As we now have at minimum, 3 independent researchers who observed the same model, perhaps there is more than meets one's simple eye. 

It shouldn't take any serious researcher long with a bit of hand's on, to prove the archaic field model inadequate.  Man exploits quite well a host of physical realities without understanding really much at all about them.  One man's verification is another's wild supposition and history has proven that the twain really only meet briefly as one supplants the other.



TS

Show me one device that is designed _and working_ according to these models of which you speak, that cannot be explained better by the "archaic" field model  that is used every day to make motors, to levitate bullet trains, to guide electron and ion beams to make the very chips your computer uses.....
you cannot.
Explain why an ordinary compass needle , taken to the equator, does not dip toward the center of the planet like Davis's imaginary model shows.
That explanation I'd really like to see.
Show me a mathematical derivation of these models of which you speak, that is also consistent with QED, the most precise and accurate theory of physics that humans have come up with yet. Show me a single violation of the relationships described by Maxwell's equations. You cannot.

The physics .... the real physics.... of the world around you refutes these imaginations of people like Davis, who apparently never used a magnetic compass at sea, and Howard Johnson, who spent his life chasing a futile dream and made lots of simple...Not Overunity.... toys, but never made anything that worked as he dreamed.