Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[Pirate88179]

Yes for not super soft ferrites.
The hardened ferromagnetic tip of a screwdriver has enough domain pinning that 1% of its magnetization remains after the external H field is removed and that 1% is enough to hold screws.
...but how do you call that "something" that causes the remaining 99% unalignment ?

Not to argue numbers but..about that 1%.  My screwdrivers that I magnetized with this device a few years ago attract the screws much better (possibly 2X better?) than a large ferrite magnet.  Nothing like a neo however.

So, even if the real number is 50% retained, or even more, I get what you are saying here and I have no answer for that.

Could it possibly be that any material "wants" to return to its natural state?
I have no idea.

Bill

[MarkE]

Question-Lets look at this from current science's point of view. What explanation do they have as to why a magnetic field can exert a force on magnetically active materials?. As far as i know,they dont have one. What force/particles that have no mass can exert a force on a mass..

The electric force.

This makes no sense at all as water has mass. So it gives no real indication as to how a magnet can apply a force on a magnetically active material without that force having mass itself.

It is an analogy.  Look, we can either put you through a course in calculus and another in physics, or I can try to explain things to you without the calculus as I have done.  The idea here is to provide an analogy that you can relate to as a way of explaining the observed behavior of this "magnetic stuff".

.
No-we are looking at the PM,not an electromagnet. The ectromagnet has an electric field as well,the PM dose not.

I'm sorry, now you seem to be contradicting yourself.  I just asked and I thought you said yes you agreed that the magnetic properties of an electromagnet are the same as a permanent magnet.  Your only objection was the power that you thought an electromagnet must consume to operate, which in the case of a superconducting electromagnet is zero.  For a very low or zero resistance coil carrying DC the electric potential throughout the coil is (nearly) or exactly (superconductor) the same, meaning that the electric field is either very small or zero (superconductor).  So, I ask again:  Do you believe that there is any difference in the characteristics of the magnetism that comes from an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet.  If so, what are they?

.
This is one of those misconceptions. How would my theory of a magnetic field change the way anything opperates today?.

Well, that's one of the things that the test with the parallel uniform magnetic field could potentially show.  It would show that force on a permeable material depends on the flux density gradient and not the flux density.

I might also point out the fact that TK uses examples that use electromagnetics,not permanent magnets(quote: this publication offers a pretty thorough explanation of how common electrodynamic machines work based on conventional theory:

Electromagnets lend themselves to generating fields of specific shapes and strengths.  With a PM, you get what you get.

-->one of the reasons we must separate the two.

Only if there is a magnetic property that we agree is different between the two.

And how would this test setup be done-what would it look like?

I posted my thoughts on this in my reply to TK on the applicability of Earnshaw to the test I am thinking of.

Yes

Good.

No. First you must be able to explain as to why and how gravity acts on a mass to be able to relate it to how a magnetic field acts on a mass.

Why must I describe why the sky is blue, if I can reliably describe when it appears blue?  Either you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does:  masses attracting each other, or you don't.  Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don't.  If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.

If a feromagnetic object is placed between two like pole's then it will not be stable and be repelled away,as it will not be attracted to two like charges. If the poles have opposite charges(north/south as we are calling them)then the feromagnetic material will be stable.

Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter.  For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions.  That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to.  You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches.  I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

[MarkE]

The magnetic modle theory is incorrect,and my theory stands.

There is nothing like spitting in the face of 200 years of some very dedicated and brilliant minds.  If you are going to make such bold declarations then kindly demonstrate how to calculate the torque on a galvonometer movement using your theory.  Conventional theory makes it a fairly trivial exercise.

If the positively charged end of a magnet is bought into contact with a magnetically active material(eg.iron/steel),then the negatively charged particles within that material will seek(be attracted to) the positively charged particles at the end of the magnet.

Kindly establish that there are any such thing as positively or negatively charged magnetic particles.

If you take a magnet and a piece of steel that has a low charge separation factor(easly magnetised)eg.a screwdriver,and a compass,we can see this charge separation happen. If you use say the positively charged end of your magnet(and we are calling this the north field),and you stroke the tip of your screwdriver with it,the negatively charged particles will be pulled to the tip of the screwdriver,as they are attracted to the positively charge end of your magnet. When you check to see what field the tip of your screwdriver now has with your compass,it should show the opposite field to that of the magnet pole you use to magnetise your screwdriver.

Unfortunately, the conventional theory also correctly predicts how a magnetized screwdriver behaves. 

[tinman]

    ?  Eiattracting each other, or you don't.  Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don'tther you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does:  masses .  If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter.  For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions.  That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to.  You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches.  I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

I'm sorry, now you seem to be contradicting yourself.  I just asked and I thought you said yes you agreed that the magnetic properties of an electromagnet are the same as a permanent magnet

.
No-i clearly stated on a number of occasions that an electromagnet has an electric field as well,a PM dose not have this field.

Your only objection was the power that you thought an electromagnet must consume to operate, which in the case of a superconducting electromagnet is zero.  For a very low or zero resistance coil carrying DC the electric potential throughout the coil is (nearly) or exactly (superconductor) the same, meaning that the electric field is either very small or zero (superconductor).  So, I ask again:  Do you believe that there is any difference in the characteristics of the magnetism that comes from an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet.

How many devices use this super conductor electromagnet in every day life machines-eg,the TV or radio? Here is the difference,and i dont know how much clearer i can make this.
An electromagnet consumes/disipates power,a PM dose not. IF we are able to use a magnetic field to produce power like a solar panel use the suns light to do so,then what point is there to use an electromagnet that consumes power when we can use a PM that dose not consume power.

Why must I describe why the sky is blue, if I can reliably describe when it appears blue

Why dose an engineer need to know why there was a structual failure in a building,and not just that there was one.

 

Either you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does:  masses attracting each other, or you don't.  Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don't.  If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.

I am yet to see gravity repel a mass.

Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter.  For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions.  That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to.  You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches.  I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

Current teachings give no answer as to what physically applies a force on a mass within a magnetic field-my theory dose. My theory also fits within all that current day science applies to magnetic field's. There is no differential in outcomes between what science and physics tells us about the behaviour of magnets and magnetic fields as apposed to my theory. The difference is that my theory gives an understanding as to what and how a magnetic field can apply a force to a magnetically active material.

There is nothing like spitting in the face of 200 years of some very dedicated and brilliant minds.  If you are going to make such bold declarations then kindly demonstrate how to calculate the torque on a galvonometer movement using your theory.  Conventional theory makes it a fairly trivial exercise

.
As did the guys that made the faster than down wind machine did.
Please tell me how my theory dose not account for every action/reaction to that of current day understanding's of the magnetic field.

Kindly establish that there are any such thing as positively or negatively charged magnetic particles.

Kindly show me there are not. Atoms are magnetic,and the electron having a negative charge,while the proton has a positive charge,and of course the neutron has no electrical charge.So you see,once again,the Atom can show you how all three states can come together. Why dose the electron simply not fly away from the proton/neutron cluster through centrifugal force?-because it is a negatively charge magnetic partical that is attracted to both the positively charged proton,and the neutral neutron cluster.

Unfortunately, the conventional theory also correctly predicts how a magnetized screwdriver behaves.

And if we rap a coil of wire around that same screw driver,and pulse it with the correct direction of current,so as it produces a north filed at the tip of the screwdriver,what field will the screwdriver retain at the tip when the current is removed from that coil of wire?.

[MarkE]

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 02:55:58 AM

        ?  Eiattracting each other, or you don't.  Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don'tther you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does:  masses .  If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter.  For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions.  That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to.  You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches.  I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

Quote

    I'm sorry, now you seem to be contradicting yourself.  I just asked and I thought you said yes you agreed that the magnetic properties of an electromagnet are the same as a permanent magnet

.

No-i clearly stated on a number of occasions that an electromagnet has an electric field as well,a PM dose not have this field.

Your statement is wrong.  Most electromagnets have an electric field.  Superconducting electromagnets have no electric field.  What difference in magnetic behavior can you demonstrate between an electromagnet and a permanent magnet?

Quote

    Your only objection was the power that you thought an electromagnet must consume to operate, which in the case of a superconducting electromagnet is zero.  For a very low or zero resistance coil carrying DC the electric potential throughout the coil is (nearly) or exactly (superconductor) the same, meaning that the electric field is either very small or zero (superconductor).  So, I ask again:  Do you believe that there is any difference in the characteristics of the magnetism that comes from an electromagnet versus a permanent magnet.

How many devices use this super conductor electromagnet in every day life machines-eg,the TV or radio? Here is the difference,and i dont know how much clearer i can make this.
An electromagnet consumes/disipates power,a PM dose not. IF we are able to use a magnetic field to produce power like a solar panel use the suns light to do so,then what point is there to use an electromagnet that consumes power when we can use a PM that dose not consume power.

I am afraid now that you are being non-responsive.  The question is what is magnetically different between an electromagnet and a permanent magnet.  You seem to acknowledge that your claim of an electric field is a truism, so that's out, along with your contention that an electromagnet consumes dissipates power when a superconducting electromagnet does not.

Quote

    Why must I describe why the sky is blue, if I can reliably describe when it appears blue

Why dose an engineer need to know why there was a structual failure in a building,and not just that there was one.

Because when comparing behaviors we need only know what is the same and what is different between those behaviors.

Quote

    Either you accept that gravity for whatever reason is observed to behave as it does:  masses attracting each other, or you don't.  Either you accept that is analagous to what you believe you observe with permeable ("magnetically reactive") materials and magnets or you don't.  If you don't then I will have to try and think of some other way to describe the observations that you make in a way that is agreeable to you.

I am yet to see gravity repel a mass.

OK so I will dispense with using any gravitational analogies.

Quote

    Well you see this is actually close to the crux of the matter.  For all the experiments that you seem to be familiar with, you see what you have been describing, and you have used your intuition to reach conclusions.  That's all fine, it's application of common sense and the information you have exposed yourself to.  You find that your conclusions seem at odds with what you understand current physics teaches.  I am trying to find a way to show you additional experimental information that will reconcile your observations with what current physics teaches.

Current teachings give no answer as to what physically applies a force on a mass within a magnetic field-my theory dose.

Now you have pegged the Archer Quinn memorial bull shit meter.

My theory also fits within all that current day science applies to magnetic field's. There is no differential in outcomes between what science and physics tells us about the behaviour of magnets and magnetic fields as apposed to my theory. The difference is that my theory gives an understanding as to what and how a magnetic field can apply a force to a magnetically active material.

Fine then show according to your theory how to calculate the force on a simple galvanometer movement based on the applied current.

Quote

    There is nothing like spitting in the face of 200 years of some very dedicated and brilliant minds.  If you are going to make such bold declarations then kindly demonstrate how to calculate the torque on a galvanometer movement using your theory.  Conventional theory makes it a fairly trivial exercise

.
As did the guys that made the faster than down wind machine did.
Please tell me how my theory dose not account for every action/reaction to that of current day understanding's of the magnetic field.

Again you are being non-responsive.  I asked you to show that your self-proclaimed revolution in science can predict an ordinary behavior correctly as the science you disdain is easily able to do.  The DWFTTW guys were able to show their completely conforming to conventional physics ideas were correct by paper analysis and experiment.  I have asked only that you apply your ideas to a simple problem that conventional theory has been used to accurately solve for many decades.

Quote

    Kindly establish that there are any such thing as positively or negatively charged magnetic particles.

Kindly show me there are not. Atoms are magnetic,and the electron having a negative charge,while the proton has a positive charge,and of course the neutron has no electrical charge. So you see,once again,the Atom can show you how all three states can come together. Why dose the electron simply not fly away from the proton/neutron cluster through centrifugal force?-because it is a negatively charge magnetic partical that is attracted to both the positively charged proton,and the neutral neutron cluster.

Now you've got a new theory of electrostatics as well?  Electrons are attracted to protons by electrostatic force.  Are you now disputing this and claiming that it is magnetic?  Seriously, what are you drinking?

Quote

    Unfortunately, the conventional theory also correctly predicts how a magnetized screwdriver behaves.

Which means the example does not differentiate between the ideas.

And if we rap a coil of wire around that same screw driver,and pulse it with the correct direction of current,so as it produces a north filed at the tip of the screwdriver,what field will the screwdriver retain at the tip when the current is removed from that coil of wire?.

Wait, now electromagnets are the same as permanent magnets?