Faraday's Paradox experiment

[KWP]

This is where you went wrong.  You are mixing and confusing the H-field with the B-field when dealing with petri dishes filled with a ferro-fluid.  The H-field is the strength or intensity of the field, while the B-field is the flux density.  The ferro-fluid indicating a change in strength when the magnet is rotated is showing you the H-field, and not the B-field.  Wings made this same mistake with Sirzerp's method of viewing magnetic field lines.  Sirzerp clearly stated in his publication the field lines being shown were not the B-field.  Your petri dishes are not showing B-fields.

Airstriker is very familiar with the B-H hystersis loop, and he should know very well, that a ferromagnetic material will have a very weak external B-field until the material is over-saturated.  The ferromagnetic ball in my video doesn't have much of an external B-field and is very weak, so how is there going to be an interaction with the magnet?

Also, in the experiment where both magnets were suspended and there was rotation, if there was a change in strength of the fields between the two magnets while both are rotating, then this "strong point" you are referring to should pull the magnets off center while rotating, but this doesn't happen.

Also, there is a very good reason why I used a ferromagnetic ball.  Because the "strong point" with the strongest magnetization force always pulled the ferromagnetic material off center.  A sphere overcomes this problem in order to carry out the experiment.  No need to use two sphere magnets, because the strong point isn't an issue between two circular magnets because the magnets are fully saturated, meaning any increase in the field strength (H-field) due to a strong point, will not have a corresponding change of the B-field or flux density of the magnets.

Keep on digging.

GB

GB,

I did not "go wrong" and there is no need for me to "keep digging".

When rare-earth magnets are made, the material is heated to the melting point, and then poured into a mold-- this process can leave voids in the material when it cools.  In addition, the ferromagnetic material in the charging fixture can also have similar voids.  This can lead to areas where the flux is stronger in a permanent magnet than in other areas (and areas that are weaker than the average).  Note that these differences are very slight, but they are enough that two magnets can "prefer" an orientation when they are placed in a situation as in your first experiment.

You are correct about the H-Field being the total strength of the total field (related to Ampere-Turns for an electromagnet, and an equivalent for permanent magnets), and the B-field being the flux per unit area of a plane that intersects the H-field.  This is pretty standard stuff that they taught us at MIT in my electromagnetics class, and of course I understand all of that.  I have no idea what you are talking about after that though-- you seem to be rambling a bit, and then going off into the weeds.

As far as I'm concerned, the question as asked in the subject line of this thread has been answered, and this thread could probably now be closed.  There is no "Faraday [Homopolar Generator] Paradox", unless you adhere to the fantasy that the magnetic field of a magnet rotates when the magnet is rotated on it's magnetic axis.

Please respond to my post #193.

[gravityblock]

@All:

There are two opposing theories here.  The first is that the magnetic "lines of force" rotate with a magnet that is being rotated on it's magnetic axis.  The second is that the "lines of force" do not rotate with the magnet.

We have the experimental evidence of Michael Faraday on the homopolar generator:

1) When the magnet is held stationary and the disk is spun, an EMF is formed.  In this case, since the magnet is not moving, this evidence is in-line with current electromagnetic theory, and has no bearing on our two theories as stated above.

2) When the disk is held stationary, and the magnet is rotated, there is no EMF formed.  In this case, the theory that the "lines of force" do not rotate when the magnet is rotated is the only theory of the two that explains the results.  (Since the "lines of force" are not rotating, they are not "cutting across" the conductive disk, and so there can be no EMF.)

3) When the magnet is attached to the disk, and the magnet and disk are rotated in unison, an EMF is formed.  In this case, the theory that the "lines of force" do not rotate when the magnet is rotated is the only theory of the two that explains the results.  (Since the "lines of force" are not rotating, but the disk is-- they are "cutting across" the conductive disk as it is rotated, and so there is an EMF.)

Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman said: “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!”

If you agree with what Richard Feynman said (that experimental data "trumps" theory), then the only conclusion you can come to is that the magnetic "lines of force" do NOT rotate with the magnet, when the magnet is rotated on it's magnetic axis.  If you accept this theory, then there is no "paradox" at all.  Any other theory is pure fantasy, and flies in the face of the established facts.  There, I said it-- did I "put my foot in my mouth" GB?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/36755129/B-Field-Confinement
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043991/Faraday-s-Final-Riddle
http://www.distinti.com/docs/pdx/paradox2.pdf

I am through debating with you.  You was wrong about me using diametrically magnetized magnets, you were wrong about the CEMF induced in the nickel coating caused rotation, you are wrong about the magnetic field not rotating while both magnets suspended by strings will rotate together showing that they indeed do rotate with the magnet, you are wrong about using petri dishes with a ferro-fluid to analyze the B-field, you are wrong about your analysis of the different modes of operation proves the field remains stationary, you are wrong about the analysis of the ferromagnetic material not rotating with the magnet proves the field is stationary when the first reference I included in this post about the confined b-field fully explains this is not the case.

Continue to be wrong, it's your right and I won't take it away from you.

GB

[scotty1]

Here is a couple of clips I made for another thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OLNMG3UTE&feature=watch_response

G.B you need to show experiments you do yourself, otherwise you will never be correct.
If magnets were hanging on strings and they were level without any chance of of motion towards each other then they would not rotate each other.
Slight motions are caused by vibration and change of distance between magnets (pulling up/down)..but it will never be rotation.

If what you say is true then I could just put a coil over a spinning ring magnet and as long as I either increased or decreased the magnet speed I would see voltage in the coil, AND it would be DC....but that doesn't happen in reality. It would actually make the coil rotate against the magnet.
Not in any of my experiments does that happen!
Scotty.

[forest]

Wind two perfect coils on two perfect nylon bearings on perfect plastic rod with nice sliding copper contacts  with a slight distance between them - two coils-rotors
connect Dc sources to both and spin the bottom one
what do you see ?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Here is a couple of clips I made for another thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OLNMG3UTE&feature=watch_response

G.B you need to show experiments you do yourself, otherwise you will never be correct.
If magnets were hanging on strings and they were level without any chance of of motion towards each other then they would not rotate each other.
Slight motions are caused by vibration and change of distance between magnets (pulling up/down)..but it will never be rotation.

If what you say is true then I could just put a coil over a spinning ring magnet and as long as I either increased or decreased the magnet speed I would see voltage in the coil, AND it would be DC....but that doesn't happen in reality. It would actually make the coil rotate against the magnet.
Not in any of my experiments does that happen!
Scotty.

Hi Scotty.  I've just started looking at your clip.  But it's stopping longer than starting so will wait until it's uploaded.  But as a quick observation - I'm not sure that this is a fair comparison.  Your aluminium disc is paramagnetic.  Doesn't that mean it will resist a magnetic field?  And I'm not sure that GB is comparing this effect with induced fields anywhere at all.  But it's interesting.  I'd quite like to see what the effect would be if your disc was soft iron or somesuch. 

My take on an induced field is that the magnetic componenets in ferromagnetic and suchlike are induced to 'extrude' corresponding flux from the material within the iron.  Which effectively means that if you showered a permanent magnet with filings - then eventually you'd find a boundary related to the amount of filings - that also corresponded with the external flux from the magnet and the flux from the iron.  In other words the actual flux has a quantifiable amount of something and all of it looking for solid material to 'house' that flux.  Whereupon it moves into a relative 'state of rest'.  From then on - no more filings can be added.  Something like that. 

VERY interested to see that rare earth magnets have that 'void'.  I've actually found this myself.  But I question that rare earth magnets are made from anything other than pure iron deposits.   I'm open to correction here.  It's just that the heating of magnets definitely 'degrades' a magnetic field.  And I see no reason why magnets can't be made from iron - with a smudge of carbon perhaps - to help it's rigidity.  Then an applied electric field and an artificial cooling to accelerate the setting?  That's how I see it done.  But I'm assuming everything here and open to correction. I'm inclined to think that the 'rare earth' magnet number is a marketing myth promoted by China to keep a near monopoly on the supplies.  I hope I'm right - but suspect I'm wrong.

And GB  I wonder if there may be some place distortion that may account for the sympathetic movement?  In other words your spin may also include some displacement off the axis.  Not sure.  But I'm still inclined to think you're right.  Be interesting to see what happens when you refine that test. 

Regards,
Rosemary