Science contradicts itself..Questions

[rangerover444]

To add some salt and pepper to our discussion, here is a nice test by Ed :

A.  ?Get four pieces of wire size sixteen, six inches long, two copper and two soft iron,
bend one end of each wire back so the clips can hold it better. Use copper wire first.
Put both wires in clips, connect with battery, have the wire ends square, now put the
loose ends together, and pull them away. Then you will notice that something is
holding you back. What is it? They are magnets. When you put the ends together,
the North and South Pole magnets are passing from one wire to the other, and in doing
it they pull the wire ends together.?

B.   ?Now put the soft iron wire in the clips, put the loose ends together, and pull them away.
This time the passing magnets hold the wire ends together stronger. Put the ends together
many times, then you will see which wire end gets red first, and which will make the
bigger bubble in the end, and watch the little sparks coming out from the bubbles.?

C.  ?Stretch the bubbles out while they are in liquid form, then you will see in the bubble
that something is whirling around. Those little sparks you see coming out of the bubble,
they are not the magnets, but the magnets are the ones which throw the sparks out of the bubbles.
When all the magnets that are in the wire, if they cannot pass over to the other wire, they are
expending the bubble and running out of it and carrying the metal sparks with them.
When the bubble is cool, break it up, then you will see the space left where the magnets were in.?







Pay attention to the sparks that being thrown at 90 degrees (most of them), due to the
centrifugal force and the speed that they approaching the contact point.
Also the ?pull? between the wires, shows that the magnets are not only creating magnetic
field around the wire, but at the touching point as well. And that due to two reasons :
1. They try to cross to the other wire.
2. Naturally when one stream of North pole approach a stream of South pole magnets, they
    pull each other.

I?m not completely sure how the two streams are passing by each other, though I don?t think
they colliding, but continue along the other streams.  Also I?m not sure where do they ends up.
So, I have to emphasize that I still don?t understand many things, but I'm keep seeking.


Not sure if electron with one negative charge could imitate this phenomena?


Cheers

[Charlie_V]

Keon1, your last post has unfortunately reached my literary capacity to read.  I will assume you made good comments as usual. 

rangerover444, could you post some pictures of what the inside of those bubbles look like?  I've read that same passage from Ed and I've always wanted to see what they look like.  However, I never did the experiment because I didn't want to buy a car battery, or waste those that I had - the only car batteries I own are in my cars. 

[rangerover444]

Charlie_V

I will try to get a better picture of the bubble, though the setting to take such a pic
should be well done, since it should be taken less then 2 second after the wires are
separated, and at a good close-up, so I?ll do my best.

Koen, I will answer the rest of your notes, in the next post. Meanwhile I hope you
will think about this test.

Thanks

[rangerover444]

Koen, thanks again for your input.

RR444 : ?You cannot hold a compass around ?charged wire? and understand the delicate
lines of force and draw a picture from that, since neither compass nor magnetic needle
can detect it.

Koen : ?No, that is true, but more so because there is no circular magnetic field around a mere
charged wire.  It is a wire with current on it that has a circular magnetic field. Eds simple tests
always involved curent as well, never static charge.?
- Not really sure why we have a ?static charge? around a wire with running currents ?


Koen :  ?And Eds tests also are equally incapable of showing anything more 'delicate' than the
circular magnetic field around the conductor. No matter how often he shouts
it must be opposed flows of magnetic monopoles, he never observes this. In fact, he never truly
observes any opposed magnetic flows. He simply assumes the N monoples must flow oppositely
to the S monopoles, and that they are and remain seperate flows. No observation of that at all,
no proof, mere assumption. It could just as well be that there is only one flow and that there
are no magnetic monopoles.?

- Ed?s needles across the wire, cannot show the delicate lines of force, but more a directional
    display of how the running magnets are thrown across and magnetized the needles according
    to their motion.
- Did you or anyone you know observed electrons running in a wire ?  Same with magnets, or like
    you already indicated ?we can only observe them indirectly?.
    Now, if someone observed a current or currents running in a wire, and it takes him a lengthily,
    complicated ?heavy-weight? explanation of a simple phenomena of a magnetic field around
    a wire, something needs to be done about it?.
- One or two of Ed?s tests - are not enough to show that motion, 30 - 40 of them will do a great
    service to the accepted model.


Koen : ?After all, Eds N flow exits a magnet at the N pole and re-enters it at
the S pole, and the S flow exits at the S pole and enters at the N pole, and apparently these opposing
flows have zero trouble while plowing through each other head-on in a magnet, but at the same time
they must always flow in an opposing whirling motion and should, according to Eds own claims,
produce the effect of electric current where they collide.?

- Just a small correction : N pole magnets are exit through the S pole, around and into the
    N pole (or hemisphere, if we talk about the earth). And the S pole magnets - in the opposite way.
-  Another correction : N & S pole magnets do not collide when the head on one another, though
    I?m not sure how they cross and proceed, they don?t collide, not in a conductor neither in a
    bar magnet or in a conducer core.



Koen : ?But they only collide in conductors, not in the magnet itself? Why would they collide
in an inductor core and produce current in the windings of a coil surrounding it, and not in a
magnet with a coil around it? After all, the flows are still opposite, the particles still have
a "whirling motion"... Why does the coil only "see" a current when the magnetic field is changed??

-  In a generator, due to the rotating fields, they ?fill? the core with one type of magnets, and the
    core pushes them to the coil (a core is not necessary to make electricity, it just to facilitate it).
-  They coil itself is one magnet while it?s being ?fed? by the core (remember that copper coil
     cannot hold magnets, unless it?s being fed). But that?s can be displayed by another nice test,
     which I?ll may present later.



Koen : ?Well, according to the electron model that is because static field lines and dynamic flow
are two different things, and electron motion causes a magnetic field, while likewise magnetic field
motion causes an electric field, which causes electrons in a conductor in this field to move if they
are mobile enough (= not "tied to" atoms/molecules to rigidly so they can actually move if a field is applied).?

  -  Why in the electron model, magnetic field convert to electricity ?   And why electrons convert
     to magnetic field ?     If one of them will not ?convert? and stay who it is (with different
     manifestations, like electricity for instance) - did not we solved the problem ?


Koen : ?According to Leedskalnin, magnetism is a dynamic flow just like current, so we should
be able to get current directly out of a permanent magnet.
I do not know of any setup whatsoever where current is drawn directly from a permanent magnet,
besides the Magnetstromapparat of Coler (/Cohler), and as far as I know nobody has managed to
replicate that effect.
I aslo do not see Ed doing that, while his dynamic flow model should allow for it??

- In order to make electricity, you need to alternate the poles. So in a static bar magnet, something
   needs to be done, to alternate poles, usually it?s a physical rotation. That does not mean it can
   be done in a different way and what you ask is the answer to the first OU machine? I wish
   I could answer that.  I?m not familiar with Cohler, but I?ll look for that.


Cheers

[Koen1]

@Rangerover:

- on the subject of the iron "bubble", that is again not proof of anything Ed said,
and it is entirely understandable why a piece of molten iron with current running
through it can and likely will show some form of spiral pattern if the molten iron
is stretched and worked like a glass-craftsman works molten glass.
It is a neat little trick, but it is no proof of any monopoles, nor of anything else
in Eds theory.

- there is no "conversion" of electrons into magnetic fields or vice versa.
I thought it would be clear enough the way I put it;
Magnetism is a relativistic phenomenon, that arises when the electron moves
in respect to the observer. The electron does not disappear, nor does it lose
any of its charge. To the electron itself, nothing changes except for its position.
To the observer a magnetic field arises around the moving electron.
Ergo, the magnetic field is a direct effect of the relative motion between observer
and electron, and not in any way a "conversion" of energy of the electric to the
magnetic form.

- yes, if you have one of the two, you don't need the other necessarily.
That is precisely why we don't need magnetic monopoles.

- I completely fail to see what you find so attractive about Leedskalnins theory,
because it does not explain anything that the electron model does not,
and it is more complicated.
What is it that you see in Eds theory that you do not find in the established theory?
So far I only see Eds imaginative but not innovative interpretation of known effects.
And after all his talk and his tests, he finally concludes the same as all those before him:
you can only get current out of a changing magnetic field.
I also get the impression you misunderstood me when I mentioned the static magnetic field.
Just for the sake of clarity: I meant that an electric current, which is moving electrical charges,
in a wire gives rise to a static magnetic field, which is a non-moving set of magnetic field lines.
I was not talking about a static electric field.

Wow, what a fantastic breakthrough. ?

Ok, here's the best test I came up with. Please think it over, see if you think the idea
accords with Leedskalnins ideas, because I keep running into a fact that differs from
Eds view in that I still see no good reason for two opposing magnet flows, but rather I
tend to see it as one magnetic field, ergo flux. So I have to keep reminding myself that
Ed does not use the same concept of flux.
So the test setup I came up with to see if we can use Eds ideas to produce output
(after all, this is the overunity forum ) is this:
- Let's take a permanent magnet that according to Leedskalnin emits N pole "magnet" particles
from the magnets N pole, and S particles from the S pole
- put the magnet in a ferromagnetic core that is shaped like a square.
- wind two coils around it, each on a "leg" of the core that does not contain the magnet and
on opposing "legs" to eachother
- take a second magnet and attach that to the side of the core with only the N pole,
so that the two magnets are at 90 degrees to eachother and the N poles are closest
- if need be a second such core can be attached to the other end of this second magnet,
but this time to the S pole, to keep the magnet balanced

If I am not totally off track here this should make for more N particle flow through the core,
which should show more output on the one coil.
But it will probably only work when pulsed with DC, and then it would probably be more efficient
to simply switch the flux back and forth between two "legs" of the core...
A variation could be to use iron wire for the core, and wind it in a spiral manner... But I'm not sure
about that one either...