Taken from another thread...
Indeed, the whole notion of field lines and loops came from Faraday's observations of the patterns in iron filings. However the theory is wrong and the iron filings only show the results of something called induced magnetism. A bar magnet induces a magnet field in each iron filing causing parallel filings to repel and serial filings to attract. It does not show that the source magnetic field has lines or loops it shows what happens to small stuff induced within a magnetic field.
To be clear, the source magnetic field did not create the lines and loops the individual induced fields in each iron filing did. In fact the lines and loops are what is called "experimental error". It's an error because the thing supposedly measuring the field was biased by the field. Not only is it an experimental error but an amateur error. The whole premise of measurement is that the thing doing the measuring not be biased by the thing it's measuring.
Another proof is that a non-ferromagnetic hall effect sensor does not detect any lines. There are no lines and there are no loops nor is anything flowing in any imaginary lines or loops.
Here is neat video showing more proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oxfLNmsvSs&t=50s
Note that whenever the magnet is moved over the hall sensor array we see a break (black line) at the center of the magnetic field. If there is supposedly no transition or neutral point then why is there always a break at the center?.
Another strange aspect to this. In this modern age of science one would think every tom, dick and harry would have mapped every kind of magnetic field with hall effect sensor arrays by now. The internet should be littered with real visualizations not just fake simulations showing imaginary lines and loops. Where are all the real maps and visualizations?, there basically non-existent. It would seem to me confirmation bias is alive and well but real science not so much.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.02, 17:12:45
Taken from another thread...
Indeed, the whole notion of field lines and loops came from Faraday's observations of the patterns in iron filings. However the theory is wrong and the iron filings only show the results of something called induced magnetism. A bar magnet induces a magnet field in each iron filing causing parallel filings to repel and serial filings to attract. It does not show that the source magnetic field has lines or loops it shows what happens to small stuff induced within a magnetic field.
To be clear, the source magnetic field did not create the lines and loops the individual induced fields in each iron filing did. In fact the lines and loops are what is called "experimental error". It's an error because the thing supposedly measuring the field was biased by the field. Not only is it an experimental error but an amateur error. The whole premise of measurement is that the thing doing the measuring not be biased by the thing it's measuring.
Another proof is that a non-ferromagnetic hall effect sensor does not detect any lines. There are no lines and there are no loops nor is anything flowing in any imaginary lines or loops.
Here is neat video showing more proof.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oxfLNmsvSs&t=50s
Note that whenever the magnet is moved over the hall sensor array we see a break (black line) at the center of the magnetic field. If there is supposedly no transition or neutral point then why is there always a break at the center?.
Another strange aspect to this. In this modern age of science one would think every tom, dick and harry would have mapped every kind of magnetic field with hall effect sensor arrays by now. The internet should be littered with real visualizations not just fake simulations showing imaginary lines and loops. Where are all the real maps and visualizations?, there basically non-existent. It would seem to me confirmation bias is alive and well but real science not so much.
AC
Hello AC,
You ask: "If there is supposedly no transition or neutral point then why is there always a break at the center?"
Because the so called "break" is actually an area where the external magnetic field is parallel to the N-S magnet axis AND also parallel to the Hall sensor. The same reasons that the middle of a magnet's surface causes a white strip on viewing film. The magnetic field is parallel to the plane of the film causing the magnetic particles to align with the plane of the film reflecting light giving a white appearance. All other areas of the film have magnetic field components perpendicular to the film plane causing these particles not to align therefore not to reflect and stay dark. Look it up.
Attached is an excellent graphic from K & J Magnetics. No doubt it was calculated however I am confident that measurement of the external magnetic field with proper instruments would confirm.
bi
Consider the pictures below...
It's easy to visualize each little compass direction forming lines and said lines forming loops, easy peasy. Unfortunately none of this is true and is a psychological defect related to how our mind rationalizes problems. We want to see patterns in everything even if said patterns do not exist. Our brain evolved to do this just like many other animals as a matter of survival.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/20978285/optical-illusion-science-humility-reality-polarization
"Reality" is constructed by your brain. Here's what that means, and why it matters.
What were actually seeing is many small objects interacting with each other within the larger magnetic field. There are no lines thus there are no loops and no flow of anything. What were actually seeing is many individual polarizations at a single point and our mind is basically making up the rest.
Now if there are no loops then obviously there can be no rule to claim there must be continuous loops and they cannot be broken. That is a false inference relating to something which doesn't exist. No lines or loops no rules relating to lines or loops. As such there is no logical reason an imaginary line or loop could not be broken by a local depolarization within a field. In effect one or more monopoles could be produced. The only problem here is that we have no idea how to do it. Which has nothing to do with a law of nature rather a lack of understanding concerning one or more laws.
This could relate to field displacement but many FE inventors of the past talked about projection or energy at a distance. In fact, were doing this to some extent today. For example, it was thought that a laser could never do noninvasive brain surgery because it would obviously burn though everything on it's way to the problem. So some clever Engineers broke up the laser beam into many smaller less powerful beams which do not burn flesh converging them on one single point inside the brain which does burn. This technology getting pretty close to the notion of a spooky action at a distance or energy projection.
Knowing this could give us some kind of direction as to how it could be possible to depolarize a local space within a magnetic field. In effect, depolarizing or cancelling/neutralizing one part of the larger field. Remember there are no lines, loops or flow it's imaginary. So some form of energy which is not magnetic in nature enters the larger field. This energy from multiple sources converges within the field, said energy then transforms into something which can depolarize the field and that part of the field ceases to exist.
In effect, we project energy into the magnetic field of the picture below disrupting the polarization of the compasses shown in one specific area. In theory it could be possible it's just a matter of working through all the problems involved.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.02, 17:59:32
Consider the pictures below...
It's easy to visualize each little compass direction forming lines and said lines forming loops, easy peasy. Unfortunately none of this is true and is a psychological defect related to how our mind rationalizes problems. We want to see patterns in everything even if said patterns do not exist. Our brain evolved to do this just like many other animals as a matter of survival.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/20978285/optical-illusion-science-humility-reality-polarization
"Reality" is constructed by your brain. Here's what that means, and why it matters.
What were actually seeing is many small objects interacting with each other within the larger magnetic field. There are no lines thus there are no loops and no flow of anything. What were actually seeing is many individual polarizations at a single point and our mind is basically making up the rest.
Now if there are no loops then obviously there can be no rule to claim there must be continuous loops and they cannot be broken. That is a false inference relating to something which doesn't exist. No lines or loops no rules relating to lines or loops. As such there is no logical reason an imaginary line or loop could not be broken by a local depolarization within a field. In effect one or more monopoles could be produced. The only problem here is that we have no idea how to do it. Which has nothing to do with a law of nature rather a lack of understanding concerning one or more laws.
This could relate to field displacement but many FE inventors of the past talked about projection or energy at a distance. In fact, were doing this to some extent today. For example, it was thought that a laser could never do noninvasive brain surgery because it would obviously burn though everything on it's way to the problem. So some clever Engineers broke up the laser beam into many smaller less powerful beams which do not burn flesh converging them on one single point inside the brain which does burn. This technology getting pretty close to the notion of a spooky action at a distance or energy projection.
Knowing this could give us some kind of direction as to how it could be possible to depolarize a local space within a magnetic field. In effect, depolarizing or cancelling/neutralizing one part of the larger field. Remember there are no lines, loops or flow it's imaginary. So some form of energy which is not magnetic in nature enters the larger field. This energy from multiple sources converges within the field, said energy then transforms into something which can depolarize the field and that part of the field ceases to exist.
In effect, we project energy into the magnetic field of the picture below disrupting the polarization of the compasses shown in one specific area. In theory it could be possible it's just a matter of working through all the problems involved.
AC
AC,
You're the one obsessed with lines and loops and poles. Not me. I know these are just constructs or teaching aids for people not able to comprehend the vector field and relate the value of that field. Like a topological map. The elevation lines aren't real. They just help relate a physical feature.
It just bugs me people misuse "Bloch Wall".
Below:
A valid explanation/definition of Bloch Wall.
Next a diagram of 2 domains separated by a Bloch Wall.
Last is the earliest misuse of the term where I think the authors of this book,
MAGNETISM AND ITS EFFECTS
ON THE LIVING SYSTEM by Albert Roy Davis
Walter C. Rawls, Jr., made the error. Book is available free on line. Look it up. Page 23.
bi
bistander
QuoteYou ask: "If there is supposedly no transition or neutral point then why is there always a break at the center?"
Because the so called "break" is actually an area where the external magnetic field is parallel to the N-S magnet axis AND also parallel to the Hall sensor. The same reasons that the middle of a magnet's surface causes a white strip on viewing film. The magnetic field is parallel to the plane of the film causing the magnetic particles to align with the plane of the film reflecting light giving a white appearance. All other areas of the film have magnetic field components perpendicular to the film plane causing these particles not to align therefore not to reflect and stay dark. Look it up.
I am aware that the magnetic field is said to be parallel to the magnet side wall N-S axis as depicted. However there are no field lines thus nothing to be parallel or perpendicular or not in reality. In reality the hall sensor is detecting the magnetic field polarity at a given point in space. It can be some magnitude of N or S or neither polarity. This video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oxfLNmsvSs&t=50s, shows the field polarity near the poles and a black band having no polarity near the center of the side wall. Nothing else should be inferred and the real data from a real experiment speaks for itself.
QuoteAttached is an excellent graphic from K & J Magnetics. No doubt it was calculated however I am confident that measurement of the external magnetic field with proper instruments would confirm.
The first problem is simulated or calculated versus doing a real experiment generating real data.
For example, the internet is littered with millions of simulated/calculated pictures identical to the ones you posted. However the video I posted where a real person actually scanned the magnetic field with real sensors was the first I had ever seen beyond my own work. In fact, real people actually doing real research in this specific area seems to be non-existent. How is it in this modern day and age only a hand full of people seem to have taken the time to actually try and map a magnetic field with real sensors to see what's actually happening?. It's beyond mind boggling and quite frankly embarrassing.
I'm really curious so when I discovered 99% of the pictures on the internet like yours are simply copy/pasted from textbooks or simulated I had to start doing real experiments for myself. It's the only way to know what's real and what's not in my opinion.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.02, 19:18:52
bistander
I am aware that the magnetic field is said to be parallel to the magnet side wall N-S axis as depicted. However there are no field lines thus nothing to be parallel or perpendicular or not in reality. In reality the hall sensor is detecting the magnetic field polarity at a given point in space. It can be some magnitude of N or S or neither polarity. This video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oxfLNmsvSs&t=50s, shows the field polarity near the poles and a black band having no polarity near the center of the side wall. Nothing else should be inferred and the real data from a real experiment speaks for itself.
The first problem is simulated or calculated versus doing a real experiment generating real data.
For example, the internet is littered with millions of simulated/calculated pictures identical to the ones you posted. However the video I posted where a real person actually scanned the magnetic field with real sensors was the first I had ever seen beyond my own work. In fact, real people actually doing real research in this specific area seems to be non-existent. How is it in this modern day and age only a hand full of people seem to have taken the time to actually try and map a magnetic field with real sensors to see what's actually happening?. It's beyond mind boggling and quite frankly embarrassing.
I'm really curious so when I discovered 99% of the pictures on the internet like yours are simply copy/pasted from textbooks or simulated I had to start doing real experiments for myself. It's the only way to know what's real and what's not in my opinion.
AC
I don't seem to have any problem finding videos of demonstrations and experiments of tests confirming the shape of the magnetic field of a bar magnet. Google search for experimental magnetic field map. Here an interesting one using a 3-axis gaussmeter. Most use a simple compass. I have yet to see one disagree with the simulations.
https://youtu.be/jaPAgOkEAko?si=3AjCpW-EWoqpJFv6
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.02, 21:09:29
I don't seem to have any problem finding videos of demonstrations and experiments of tests confirming the shape of the magnetic field of a bar magnet. Google search for experimental magnetic field map. Here an interesting one using a 3-axis gaussmeter. Most use a simple compass. I have yet to see one disagree with the simulations.
https://youtu.be/jaPAgOkEAko?si=3AjCpW-EWoqpJFv6
bi
I'm not sure one video qualifies as many and the video reminds me of when I was an amateur in this field using linear hall sensors and my DSO. The obvious problem is that simply running along one path and plotting the results tells us very little. It's almost meaningless until we compare many paths and plot them within a three dimensional space.
For example, the picture below from a real magnetic field scanner, not a simulation, gives us much more information. However it's still lacking because the scan area is large and the resolution low. As well, the scan still uses primitive lines and loops where it should be singular points having a given field strength and polarity as a gradient of force. For example, the scan below wouldn't tell us that in a 1" x 1" N52 cylinder magnet the field strength along the pole face edge near to the side wall is twice as strong as the pole face center. The field is very concentrated in that specific area as it transitions from the face to the side wall.
The present field scanner I'm working on is pretty neat. It couples a MLX90393 3-axis magnetometer with a MPU-6050 3-axis gyro/accelerometer. We can calculate the present position of the sensor in a 3D space based on the direction, magnitude of acceleration and time from it's last position. There are no primitive wires, tracks, belts, no stepper motors or servos. Like a magic wand we slowly wave around a magnetic field source as it plots all the data within the 3 dimensional space on a laptop. I hope you can appreciate how much better and easier something like this would be versus the primitive video you posted.
AC
You need to change the title of this thread as there is nothing in this thread about magnet motors. You two nit-pickers deserve each other. Have fun while the rest of us continue real research.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.03, 15:49:57
I'm not sure one video qualifies as many and the video reminds me of when I was an amateur in this field using linear hall sensors and my DSO. The obvious problem is that simply running along one path and plotting the results tells us very little. It's almost meaningless until we compare many paths and plot them within a three dimensional space.
For example, the picture below from a real magnetic field scanner, not a simulation, gives us much more information. However it's still lacking because the scan area is large and the resolution low. As well, the scan still uses primitive lines and loops where it should be singular points having a given field strength and polarity as a gradient of force. For example, the scan below wouldn't tell us that in a 1" x 1" N52 cylinder magnet the field strength along the pole face edge near to the side wall is twice as strong as the pole face center. The field is very concentrated in that specific area as it transitions from the face to the side wall.
The present field scanner I'm working on is pretty neat. It couples a MLX90393 3-axis magnetometer with a MPU-6050 3-axis gyro/accelerometer. We can calculate the present position of the sensor in a 3D space based on the direction, magnitude of acceleration and time from it's last position. There are no primitive wires, tracks, belts, no stepper motors or servos. Like a magic wand we slowly wave around a magnetic field source as it plots all the data within the 3 dimensional space on a laptop. I hope you can appreciate how much better and easier something like this would be versus the primitive video you posted.
AC
Hi AC,
Quotepicture below from a real magnetic field scanner, not a simulation, gives us much more information
Nice picture. Notice all the lines and loops. Attached below for convenience.
Quotethe scan below wouldn't tell us that in a 1" x 1" N52 cylinder magnet the field strength along the pole face edge near to the side wall is twice as strong as the pole face center.
Yet a simulation such as I posted would give that specific information. Attached again below.
bi
Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.05.03, 16:46:25
You need to change the title of this thread as there is nothing in this thread about magnet motors. You two nit-pickers deserve each other. Have fun while the rest of us continue real research.
Hi citfta,
Maybe your researchers and builders would waste less time and effort if they understood fundamentals, which might be what we are really discussing. Should all members be required to read and follow the "masterpiece" written by Mr. Wheeler, Bloch Walls and all?
Give me a break.
bi
Consider this. If you are standing behind a fan turning slowly and you see it is turning clockwise when you go around to the front of the fan you will see it is turning counterclockwise. Now if you are standing directly at 90 degrees to the fan blades which way is it turning?
Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.05.03, 19:27:03
Consider this. If you are standing behind a fan turning slowly and you see it is turning clockwise when you go around to the front of the fan you will see it is turning counterclockwise. Now if you are standing directly at 90 degrees to the fan blades which way is it turning?
Hi citfta,
I don't know.
Please explain the relevance. Do you equate the fan blades to a Bloch Wall? To the midpoint of a magnet? Do you think the magnetic field rotates?
bi
Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.05.03, 19:27:03
Consider this. If you are standing behind a fan turning slowly and you see it is turning clockwise when you go around to the front of the fan you will see it is turning counterclockwise. Now if you are standing directly at 90 degrees to the fan blades which way is it turning?
Depends on which side you are standing. It is a point of view situation, yes?
thay
Quote from: Thaelin on 2024.05.04, 08:49:07
Depends on which side you are standing. It is a point of view situation, yes?
thay
YES!! And the problem is most people refuse to accept that there may be another way of looking at things.Carroll
The magnetic field rotates, but we see it as stationary. We look at a lake or a calm sea and the ship is not moving, so we can say that the sea is not moving, but everyone knows that there are currents under the surface. The same as we look at the sky. We don't see the wind until we see, for example, a bird or flying garbage.
That's how I see it. Maybe it's completely wrong, but looking at galaxies and atoms, for example, everything is in motion.
Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.05.04, 10:16:08
YES!! And the problem is most people refuse to accept that there may be another way of looking at things.
Carroll
citfta,
There are some interpretations, theories, beliefs, or 'ways of looking at things' which are either right or wrong.
That is my way of looking at it.
With the existing conventional scientific theories and knowledge base, engineers have designed electric machinery which powers civilization as we know it. All the electric motors and generators which operate extremely efficiently and whose magnetic characteristics are so well understood that they can be designed from scratch by those skilled engineers, all of whom know there is no Bloch Wall in the middle of a magnet. Show me one useful real device or system designed using a crackpot theory which has a Bloch Wall in the middle of a magnet and torsion magnetic field.
We both have seen individuals 'teaching' on these forums generator designs who don't even know electric circuit analysis let alone magnetic circuits. They follow the fantasy displayed with colorful graphics by some crackpot with a strong personality. If you required life saving surgery, would you choose a skilled surgeon or the artist who draws beautiful depictions of what he imagines your internal organs appear?
Right way / wrong way. Want results? One doesn't have to know what they're doing to experiment with magnets, but it would be beneficial if they did. How many consider the permeance coefficient when choosing a magnet for their magnet motor? But nonetheless, carry on.
bi
bistander
QuoteWith the existing conventional scientific theories and knowledge base, engineers have designed electric machinery which powers civilization as we know it. All the electric motors and generators which operate extremely efficiently and whose magnetic characteristics are so well understood that they can be designed from scratch by those skilled engineers, all of whom know there is no Bloch Wall in the middle of a magnet. Show me one useful real device or system designed using a crackpot theory which has a Bloch Wall in the middle of a magnet and torsion magnetic field.
To my knowledge none of these highly trained people using existing conventional scientific theories ever invented a working magnetic motor.
QuoteShow me one useful real device or system designed using a crackpot theory which has a Bloch Wall in the middle of a magnet and torsion magnetic field
Funny you should ask, I invented a magnetic bearing based on the neutral zone theory years ago. Everyone was building magnetic bearings based on repulsion and they claimed a bearing using attraction was impossible. I was replicating the Wesley Gary magnetic motor at the time and was thinking about his neutral zone. Then it occurred to me that a three element system using two neutral zones could offset each other. In effect, if one attraction zone is pulling one way and another attraction zone pulling the opposite way then the two forces should balance producing zero force, a third neutral zone in the center.
I posted/open sourced this years ago and found almost everyone still couldn't figure it out even after I drew a picture. This is when I realized people can't see things there not looking for. It's like a blind spot and something can be staring them in the face yet they still cannot see it, it's strange. You see I can open source stuff that has some tangible value, you should try it.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.04, 22:32:34
bistander
To my knowledge none of these highly trained people using existing conventional scientific theories ever invented a working magnetic motor.
Funny you should ask, I invented a magnetic bearing based on the neutral zone theory years ago. Everyone was building magnetic bearings based on repulsion and they claimed a bearing using attraction was impossible. I was replicating the Wesley Gary magnetic motor at the time and was thinking about his neutral zone. Then it occurred to me that a three element system using two neutral zones could offset each other. In effect, if one attraction zone is pulling one way and another attraction zone pulling the opposite way then the two forces should balance producing zero force, a third neutral zone in the center.
I posted/open sourced this years ago and found almost everyone still couldn't figure it out even after I drew a picture. This is when I realized people can't see things there not looking for. It's like a blind spot and something can be staring them in the face yet they still cannot see it, it's strange. You see I can open source stuff that has some tangible value, you should try it.
AC
AC,
Nobody has designed a purely magnetic motor which works outputting power with no input power. What's your point?
Your magnetic bearing appears be a balanced force system. Where is the Bloch Wall design dependence? Is your invention patented? Is it being used to do useful work? Please post a proof of claim. A video of the 5 krpm 15kg rotor would be interesting. Then show the tangible value.
I copied and pasted the text from your diagram.
QuoteTheory of operation:
The attraction bearing is based on the fact that if one or more magnets is perfectly centered between two outer magnets the outer forces neutralize to become zero. That is the center load shaft is pulled neither right or left and almost no force is required to hold the load shaft at center. In one instance a 15 kilogram load rotating at 5000 rpm was fully supported and only 3 grams of force required to keep the load shaft centered. Thus the bearing is considered to be over 99% passive in it's nature.
What makes this bearing unique is that the load is only supported by magnetic shear forces within a neutral zone. That is, each magnet pair neutral zone in attraction is attracted from every direction inward. The load shaft is supported by this perfectly balanced force inward which also includes an upward force. Thus the load weight will attempt to shear the magnetic fields in attraction but produces no torce to the right or left.
The Neutral Zone concept is based on the fact that when two polar magnetic fields (N and S) merge the center between said fields in neither N or S in nature but neutral. This is true because one field cannot merge or interact with another field without a transition.
I say that your reasoning expressed in the last sentence is flawed.
bi
Why does my magnet not wish to hang in the centre ? :(
I've tried a bulk of magnets. Sticks to the wall. And so wanted miracul. >:(
Hello AC,
I spent some time on the K & J Magnetics website. Here are some articles and graphics from there which I think explain well the theory to which I subscribe.
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=magnetic-forces
Includes Magnetic Forces both normal and lateral to the pole surface graph.
________
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=shear-force
_______
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=there-are-no-poles
_________
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=fluxlines
_______
bi
Quote from: maxmalone on 2024.05.04, 10:25:03
That's how I see it. Maybe it's completely wrong, but looking at galaxies and atoms, for example, everything is in motion.
IMO everything is motion. Motion is a ratio between space and time.
See this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49658).
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.05.05, 09:06:46
Why does my magnet not wish to hang in the centre ? :(
I've tried a bulk of magnets. Sticks to the wall. And so wanted miracul. >:(
Just insert the stick into the center of the magnets :D O0
Okay, I'll go out on a limb here and publically state I don't believe in a actual physical bloch wall. I don't believe in a physical bloch wall because if you cut a magnet in half at the "bloch wall" you don't get a north half and a south half. You get two magnets that each have a north end and a south end. But if visualizing a bloch wall helps someone understand the workiings of a magnet I also don't see a problem with that.
Bi keeps insisting we have to use the proper terminology when discussing technical things. IF we were working with other engineers that would of course be necessary. But since most of us are just experimenters as long as we understand each other the proper terminology is not strictly necessary.
I also don't believe in the nonsense being posted over and over again that we have to ignore what has already been discovered. That is nonsense. But we also need to consider that we still don't know a lot about some things. Can anyone really explain how a magnet can create a field outside it's self that can be observed by like poles repelling and opposite poles attracting? What is that field actually made up of?
My 2 cents,
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.05.05, 12:37:04
Okay, I'll go out on a limb here and publically state I don't believe in a actual physical bloch wall. I don't believe in a physical bloch wall because if you cut a magnet in half at the "bloch wall" you don't get a north half and a south half. You get two magnets that each have a north end and a south end. But if visualizing a bloch wall helps someone understand the workiings of a magnet I also don't see a problem with that.
Bi keeps insisting we have to use the proper terminology when discussing technical things. IF we were working with other engineers that would of course be necessary. But since most of us are just experimenters as long as we understand each other the proper terminology is not strictly necessary.
I also don't believe in the nonsense being posted over and over again that we have to ignore what has already been discovered. That is nonsense. But we also need to consider that we still don't know a lot about some things. Can anyone really explain how a magnet can create a field outside it's self that can be observed by like poles repelling and opposite poles attracting? What is that field actually made up of?
My 2 cents,
Carroll
Hi citfta,
Thanks for your 2¢.
"if visualizing a bloch wall helps someone understand the workiings of a magnet I also don't see a problem with that."
The problem with that school of thought is that visualization leads to belief. And believing there is a wall, or division in the middle and that there's substantial differences on opposite sides, then it's interfering with true understanding. How can a magnet be truly efficiently applied in a magnetic circuit when the designer thinks "magnetism" enters the body of the magnet at the Bloch Wall. IMO, it's also an insult to Dr. Felix Bloch. At very least, these crackpots could use a different name for their fantasy barrier.
"What is that field actually made up of?"
What is gravity, or gravitational field made up of? I don't know. But that lack of the true nature doesn't prevent detailed characterization of the phenomenon and intelligent applications. No doubt we could do better if we knew the answer to your question. And I'm sure many smart people strive to find the answer for us.
bi
bistander
QuoteNobody has designed a purely magnetic motor which works outputting power with no input power. What's your point?
Your magnetic bearing appears be a balanced force system. Where is the Bloch Wall design dependence? Is your invention patented? Is it being used to do useful work? Please post a proof of claim. A video of the 5 krpm 15kg rotor would be interesting. Then show the tangible value.
The point was that my device is based on the idea of a neutral point or what some call a bloch wall which I agree is not a technically correct term. You asked for a useful device based on a supposed crackpot theory and I showed you one. In fact, I have many other useful devices based on this same crackpot theory. The bearing shown works well and when I gave it a half spin by hand two days later the rotor was still turning. Because 100% of the load is levitated it has very close to zero friction which is remarkable.
It also shows that everyone who claimed a magnetic bearing based on attraction is impossible were misguided. They were using flawed logic supposing that because a simple system cannot work then no system can work which is wrong. I simply added another magnet pair to balance the total force in the system and used the sliding/shear force to support the load. It shows that what everyone thought was impossible can actually be so simple even a child could understand it.
However I will concede that I could not build a 100% passive magnetic bearing. I could reduce it to 99.99% passive but never could break the 100% mark. In any case, it was fun building and testing this technology and it's open source so anyone can use it.
Which ultimately begs the question, if everyone was completely wrong about something this simple then what else could they be wrong about?. I mean literally everyone claimed a magnetic bearing based on attraction is impossible yet here it is.
AC
Citfta
QuoteOkay, I'll go out on a limb here and publically state I don't believe in a actual physical bloch wall. I don't believe in a physical bloch wall because if you cut a magnet in half at the "bloch wall" you don't get a north half and a south half. You get two magnets that each have a north end and a south end. But if visualizing a bloch wall helps someone understand the workiings of a magnet I also don't see a problem with that.
I agree the term bloch wall is often misused but has some merit. A bloch wall is defined as "
a transition region between adjacent magnetic domains in a ferromagnetic material". Could we not say, there is an external field transition region between two different magnetic poles similar to an adjacent magnetic domain?. In effect, by separating two different magnetic domains into two separate magnets the transition region changes from internal to external. Ergo, it could be seen as the same principal viewed from a different perspective.
Suppose we had one magnet made of 100 aligned magnetic domains. Science tells us there is in fact a transition region between all the magnetic domains called bloch walls. We then break the one magnet in half so each half has 50 magnetic domains. Where did the transition region go which was between the domains now in two halves?. The transition region ie. bloch wall should still be present it's just spread apart and now external between the two magnet halves where before it was internal to one magnet.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.07, 18:01:06
Citfta
I agree the term bloch wall is often misused but has some merit. A bloch wall is defined as "a transition region between adjacent magnetic domains in a ferromagnetic material". Could we not say, there is an external field transition region between two different magnetic poles similar to an adjacent magnetic domain?. In effect, by separating two different magnetic domains into two separate magnets the transition region changes from internal to external. Ergo, it could be seen as the same principal viewed from a different perspective.
Suppose we had one magnet made of 100 aligned magnetic domains. Science tells us there is in fact a transition region between all the magnetic domains called bloch walls. We then break the one magnet in half so each half has 50 magnetic domains. Where did the transition region go which was between the domains now in two halves?. The transition region ie. bloch wall should still be present it's just spread apart and now external between the two magnet halves where before it was internal to one magnet.
AC
Hi AC,
Here's a couple of typical definitions of Bloch Wall.
QuoteA Bloch wall is a type of domain wall that forms in magnetic materials. It is a transition region between two regions of the material where the magnetization is oriented in different directions.
In a magnetic material, the atoms have an inherent magnetic moment, which can align with an external magnetic field. When a magnetic field is applied to a ferromagnetic material, the magnetic moments of the atoms tend to align in the direction of the field, creating a magnetic domain with a uniform magnetization. A Bloch wall forms at the boundary between two such domains, where the direction of magnetization gradually changes from one domain to the other.
The magnetization in a Bloch wall rotates continuously within the wall, rather than abruptly changing direction. The direction of magnetization at any point within the wall can be described by a Bloch vector, which varies smoothly across the wall.
The width of a Bloch wall depends on the properties of the material and the strength of the magnetic field. In some materials, the width of the wall can be as small as a few nanometers, while in others it can be several micrometers or more.
The formation and behavior of Bloch walls are important in the study of magnetic materials and have many practical applications. For example, they play a crucial role in the operation of magnetic memories and in the development of magnetic sensors and spintronic devices. Read more about Bloch function
https://edutinker.com/glossary/bloch-wall/.
________
Bloch wall
"Bloch wall" is one type of the boundary structure of magnetic domains whose magnetization directions are antiparallel or are different by 180°to each other. The magnetic dipoles continuously rotate in planes parallel to the magnetic boundary and finally connect to those at the adjacent magnetic domain with opposite magnetization. This structure is formed in a bulk specimen with a thickness of more than 100 nm. The thickness of the Bloch wall is about 50 nm for iron. In a diffraction pattern formed by two adjacent magnetic domains containing a Bloch wall, a diffuse intensity line appears connecting the diffraction spots from the two domains.
https://www.jeol.com/words/emterms/20121023.093757.php#gsc.tab=0
Note not
all domains are said or claimed to have a Bloch Wall associated. In fact, inference is made that adjacent domains having parallel magnetic moments do not qualify since a rotation of moments takes place as a transition in the Bloch Wall. So when the magnet is saturated by an external magnetic field (magnetized) and all the domains align, one might assume there would be no Bloch Walls. Individual domains would undoubtedly still have boundaries, or walls, but being all parallel, no transition from one to another involving rotating moments.
And I fail to see any transition in the external field. It's a singular field around the magnet, not a north field and a south field. The north and south poles are imaginary constructs to aid teaching students the behavior of magnetism, much like lines of force. No real entity of a magnetic pole exists, only a definition of an area on gaussian surface where the integral of the magnetic field direction is inward (S) or outward (N).
bi
AC and Bi,
The first link below is an experiment where a Neo bar magnet is suspended in a horizontally positioned, vertically wound coil that is energized with 3A DC. The second link shows a similar experiment done with a single fine wire. How do we justify these results if the PM flux field is simply parallel to the sides of the magnet?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/777duffo31rl8ly8502zh/MAH01008.MP4?rlkey=cwmhwmq0uda5o8nnj8w9u3nuo&st=hybrrrlq&dl=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2JFDpTE_ls
Pm
This book could be the origin of the bloch wall debate.
It seems to have originated from a book called "Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System" by Albert Roy and Walter Rawls published in 1974. It's an interesting book and can be downloaded here, http://www.rexresearch.com/davisrawls/davisrawls.htm
They claim to be using a different field mapping technique not dependent on iron filings, compasses ie. induced magnetism or hall effect sensors. Which could explain why there results are different. They also seem to have done decades of work on how magnetic fields affect organic systems.
AC
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.08, 15:29:39
AC and Bi,
The first link below is an experiment where a Neo bar magnet is suspended in a horizontally positioned, vertically wound coil that is energized with 3A DC. The second link shows a similar experiment done with a single fine wire. How do we justify these results if the PM flux field is simply parallel to the sides of the magnet?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/777duffo31rl8ly8502zh/MAH01008.MP4?rlkey=cwmhwmq0uda5o8nnj8w9u3nuo&st=hybrrrlq&dl=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2JFDpTE_ls
Pm
Indeed, I have done the same experiments. Also many similar experiments relating to an excellent book by Leonard Crow on a non-ferrous electromagnet which I replicated.
The book can be downloaded here, http://www.rexresearch.com/mrmagnet/mrmagnet.htm
As an inventor I found it's best not to get too wrapped up in what others believe. It's better to do real experiments like you posted then look for an application. To say, okay I discovered an energized wire is attracted to the center of a magnet not the poles. What do more wires do, what does wires around a small core do, what if I used a much longer magnet or magnets in series, how can I apply this?. So we go through this creative process where we learn how far we can take a new idea or phenomena by doing as many real experiments as we can.
In fact, it does not really depend on science because in many cases nobody knows exactly what's going to happen. As well it's best not to do any research at first which could bias our observations or creative process. As an inventor the goal is to live in the present and focus on what we learn from our first hand observations.
AC
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.08, 15:29:39
AC and Bi,
The first link below is an experiment where a Neo bar magnet is suspended in a horizontally positioned, vertically wound coil that is energized with 3A DC. The second link shows a similar experiment done with a single fine wire. How do we justify these results if the PM flux field is simply parallel to the sides of the magnet?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/777duffo31rl8ly8502zh/MAH01008.MP4?rlkey=cwmhwmq0uda5o8nnj8w9u3nuo&st=hybrrrlq&dl=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2JFDpTE_ls
Pm
Hi PM,
In both experiments, the observed behavior is exactly what is predicted by Lorentz force law and classic magnetic field as shown on the attached graphic. On the FEMM of the magnet, the N S axis is vertical. Draw a perpendicular bisector. That gives a horizontal line at the magnet mid point. Notice the intersection of that horizontal line with the field lines occurs where a tangent would be vertical. So the
B vector (magnetic field) at that point is vertical. The current in the wire is horizontal at right angle to that midline (or in or out of the screen). So the cross product of the field vector and the current vector results in the force vector with direction on the midline to the right or to the left. See attached right hand rule diagram.
*
So depending on the direction of the current and orientation of the magnet, the wire will come to rest at the midpoint of the magnet, one side or the other. The point where it comes to rest is called a stable detent. That is a position where the force between the magnet and wire are equal and a deviation from this stable detent will result in a force causing it to return.
The experiment with the magnet suspended in the coil is the same except the Lorentz force occurs 360° around the midpoint with a deviation, as the presenter mentions, due to gravity. The addition of the gravitational force rises the stable detent on the magnet slightly above the midpoint.
Perfect demonstrations. Thanks.
bi
*edit:
When the wire is elsewhere other than on the midline, the field vector (on a tangent to the field line) is non vertical and points in a direction such that the Lorentz force (
B ×
I) will point towards the midpoint causing the wire to move towards the stable detent.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 04:14:49
Hi PM,
In both experiments, the observed behavior is exactly what is predicted by Lorentz force law and classic magnetic field as shown on the attached graphic. On the FEMM of the magnet, the N S axis is vertical. Draw a perpendicular bisector. That gives a horizontal line at the magnet mid point. Notice the intersection of that horizontal line with the field lines occurs where a tangent would be vertical. So the B vector (magnetic field) at that point is vertical. The current in the wire is horizontal at right angle to that midline (or in or out of the screen). So the cross product of the field vector and the current vector results in the force vector with direction on the midline to the right or to the left. See attached right hand rule diagram.
*
So depending on the direction of the current and orientation of the magnet, the wire will come to rest at the midpoint of the magnet, one side or the other. The point where it comes to rest is called a stable detent. That is a position where the force between the magnet and wire are equal and a deviation from this stable detent will result in a force causing it to return.
The experiment with the magnet suspended in the coil is the same except the Lorentz force occurs 360° around the midpoint with a deviation, as the presenter mentions, due to gravity. The addition of the gravitational force rises the stable detent on the magnet slightly above the midpoint.
Perfect demonstrations. Thanks.
bi
*edit:
When the wire is elsewhere other than on the midline, the field vector (on a tangent to the field line) is non vertical and points in a direction such that the Lorentz force (B × I) will point towards the midpoint causing the wire to move towards the stable detent.
I disagree.
The below image does not show what a magnetic field is.
The field lines around the magnet are totally wrong, and in no way represent the actual field of a PM.
If the image actually showed what a PMs field is, then any part along the length of that magnet would induce an emf in a coil if it was waved across the face of the coil, but it does not.
Two totally different fields exist along the length of the magnet, which could be seen as a positive and negative charge, where the center along the length see's a neutral point of charges.
But these charges ae not what we know as charges. These fields are made of some other form of charge that we are yet to understand.
Like charges repel, unlike charges attract. This is exactly what we see with PMs, but with fields that dense, no electric fields that we know of today can produce such forces that we find with the PMs fields.
I believe that the PM is separating charges of an extremely dense energy field that is all around us, and of which we are yet to understand.
You are of course free to come up with another explanation or example that would explain this invisible force around the PMs body.
With charged capacitor plates, we can remove that charge, and use it to power loads.
Now, Imagin what we would have once we work out what this charge is around a PM, and how to use it, where the PM continually keeps renewing this charge separation.
The whole problem is, most think we know all about !electrical! charge, and what it is.
We are stuck with this thinking that we know all there is to know when it comes to charges, which is why the field around a PM still remains an unknown--we keep looking for what we know, and disregard looking for the unknown. That is science today--we know what charges are, and it's not charges around a PM, so lets not look any further.
So here are some facts
1- we know that electric charges (as we know them),can exert a small invisible force between like and unlike charges.
2- we know that (what we call poles) of a PM can exert large forces between them--far greater than any electrical charges can.
So, do we know of anything else that can exert an invisible force as such?, other than gravity, which is quite a weak force.
Brad
Hi Brad,
You've mentioned this position previously. So I conducted an experiment in my basement lab. Attached are a couple of photos of the set-up. I used a 1×.5×.2 inch neo bar magnet clamped by two .5 inch lexan blocks such that magnetic axis was vertical.
The single wire drew 15-20 A from a single LiMNC cell. It perfectly demonstrated Pm's first test being attracted to the center of the magnet.
Secondly I used a multi turn coil and moved it sharply by hand in the area of the midsection of the magnet. Even at those low speeds, I was able to detect 10-15mV on the analog voltmeter verifying that there is an induced voltage when cutting the magnetic field in that region.
I'm unsure why your results differ. Perhaps you used a smaller coil where induction on two opposite coil sides cancelled.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 13:24:37
Hi Brad,
You've mentioned this position previously. So I conducted an experiment in my basement lab. Attached are a couple of photos of the set-up. I used a 1×.5×.2 inch neo bar magnet clamped by two .5 inch lexan blocks such that magnetic axis was vertical.
The single wire drew 15-20 A from a single LiMNC cell. It perfectly demonstrated Pm's first test being attracted to the center of the magnet.
Secondly I used a multi turn coil and moved it sharply by hand in the area of the midsection of the magnet. Even at those low speeds, I was able to detect 10-15mV on the analog voltmeter verifying that there is an induced voltage when cutting the magnetic field in that region.
I'm unsure why your results differ. Perhaps you used a smaller coil where induction on two opposite coil sides cancelled.
bi
QuoteThe single wire drew 15-20 A from a single LiMNC cell. It perfectly demonstrated Pm's first test being attracted to the center of the magnet.
But why is it drawn to the center of the magnet, if the field is along the whole length of the magnet?
QuoteSecondly I used a multi turn coil and moved it sharply by hand in the area of the midsection of the magnet. Even at those low speeds, I was able to detect 10-15mV on the analog voltmeter verifying that there is an induced voltage when cutting the magnetic field in that region.
That is because you are moving the coil from one field to the other, where an ac voltage would have appeared.
The fact that you get a voltage is showing you that the field is changing from one end to the other.
If the field was the same along the length of the magnet, then there would be no voltage produced, due to a non changing magnetic field.
If you instead run the center of the magnet across the coil, then no emf will be produced, as there is no net field at the center of the PM body..
See image below.
Brad
Hi Brad,
I tried my best to explain it to Pm.
That's all I should say to you because I've been told not to argue with you.
Regards,
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 13:51:32
Hi Brad,
I tried my best to explain it to Pm.
That's all I should say to you because I've been told not to argue with you.
Regards,
bi
So someone is dictating to you what discussions we should and can have?
I must say, that is not very scientific.
I never took you for being someone who could be silenced.
You never were at energetic, amongst the clown squad.
Through simple tests, we can see the field along a rod magnet drop from one end to a 0 value at the center, and then invert from the center, to the other end.
PMs do not have the same field along their length as your diagram depicted.
A PM is more like 2 batteries in series, where you can place one DMM probe at the center of the 2 series connected batteries, and with the other probe, measure a positive voltage at one end, and a negative voltage at the other end, where the center has a value of 0.
I will go back and read what you described to PM.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.09, 14:27:25
So someone is dictating to you what discussions we should and can have?
I must say, that is not very scientific.
I never took you for being someone who could be silenced.
You never were at energetic, amongst the clown squad.
Through simple tests, we can see the field along a rod magnet drop from one end to a 0 value at the center, and then invert from the center, to the other end.
PMs do not have the same field along their length as your diagram depicted.
A PM is more like 2 batteries in series, where you can place one DMM probe at the center of the 2 series connected batteries, and with the other probe, measure a positive voltage at one end, and a negative voltage at the other end, where the center has a value of 0.
I will go back and read what you described to PM.
Brad
Brad,
I enjoy discussions. And would like to continue. But these folks have the power and will delete my messages. I hate when I spend time and effort composing a reply to have thrown in the bit bucket.
Cheers,
bi
Quote from bistander:
QuoteSo depending on the direction of the current and orientation of the magnet, the wire will come to rest at the midpoint of the magnet, one side or the other. The point where it comes to rest is called a stable detent. That is a position where the force between the magnet and wire are equal and a deviation from this stable detent will result in a force causing it to return.
The experiment with the magnet suspended in the coil is the same except the Lorentz force occurs 360° around the midpoint with a deviation, as the presenter mentions, due to gravity. The addition of the gravitational force rises the stable detent on the magnet slightly above the midpoint.
Perfect demonstrations. Thanks.
In my opinion bistander made a few conflicting claims,
1)He claimed there was no "neutral zone" at the field center of a magnet then claimed the center is where the force between the magnet and wire equalize ie. neutralize.
2)He claimes the imaginary field lines along the side of the magnet are parallel and uniform with no center. Then claims the center is where the force between the magnet and wire are equal ie. neutral.
Which begs the question, if there is no neutral zone or center then why do all the forces balance at the center?. Obviously something must be happening at the center otherwise the forces in the system wouldn't always be moving to the center.
So we have experimental proof that there is a neutral zone or field center where the forces balance. The next step is to determine what's going on at the center and how to utilize this phenomena.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.09, 15:17:21
Quote from bistander:
In my opinion bistander made a few conflicting claims,
1)He claimed there was no "neutral zone" at the field center of a magnet then claimed the center is where the force between the magnet and wire equalize ie. neutralize.
2)He claimes the imaginary field lines along the side of the magnet are parallel and uniform with no center. Then claims the center is where the force between the magnet and wire are equal ie. neutral.
Which begs the question, if there is no neutral zone or center then why do all the forces balance at the center?. Obviously something must be happening at the center otherwise the forces in the system wouldn't always be moving to the center.
So we have experimental proof that there is a neutral zone or field center where the forces balance. The next step is to determine what's going on at the center and how to utilize this phenomena.
AC
AC,
I never made such claims.
1.)
The Lorentz force is pushing the wire against the surface on the magnet in the middle of the vertical surface. According to Sir Newton, opposite and equal force from the magnet to the wire. Stable detent or equilibrium point, not neutral and not devoid of flux or force.
2.)
Where did I say lines are parallel? Where did I say uniform? Where did I say no center? I talk about a horizontal midline (perpendicular bisector).
bi
Bistander
Quote1.)
The Lorentz force is pushing the wire against the surface on the magnet in the middle of the vertical surface. According to Sir Newton, opposite and equal force from the magnet to the wire. Stable detent or equilibrium point, not neutral and not devoid of flux or force.
Now were simply talking semantics aren't we?. You say stable detent or equilibrium point and others say neutral point or bloch wall. The outcome would seem to be the same in my opinion. The forces move towards a center point between the two poles.
Quote2.)
Where did I say lines are parallel? Where did I say uniform? Where did I say no center? I talk about a horizontal midline (perpendicular bisector).
Again were talking semantics. You posted a picture of a standard magnetic field with parallel mostly uniform lines along the side and implied this is what a magnetic field looks like. You implied there is no center and yet we have proof the forces always move to a center.
My question is simple, if there is no center then why is there ample proof the forces always move towards a center between the poles. I'm not sure how one can claim others are misguided when they imply the same thing using slightly different terms. Is there a center between the poles the forces move towards or not?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.09, 15:17:21
So we have experimental proof that there is a neutral zone or field center where the forces balance. The next step is to determine what's going on at the center and how to utilize this phenomena.
AC
Maybe because although magnetic force in Bloch wall equal zero,but length of blochwall equal null as well.
So your work which is done in order 2 Newton's law also equal zero.
Bi,
I'm sorry to be so late in responding but I had some issues come up unexpectedly!
The right hand diagram you show also demonstrates the attraction or repulsion of the magnetic field in the perpendicular and the resultant force direction. I would agree that as a result we should see the wire move towards or away form the PM field. What I question is the reason why the wire seeks the center or the PM when in the attraction mode? In my way of looking at it, the wire would seem to want to be unstable in the attraction mode and would seek the opposite pole instead of locking in the center. The only way IMO the wire would attract to the center would be as a result of a reduction in the opposite PM field at that physical point.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.09, 17:25:00
Bistander
Now were simply talking semantics aren't we?. You say stable detent or equilibrium point and others say neutral point or bloch wall. The outcome would seem to be the same in my opinion. The forces move towards a center point between the two poles.
Again were talking semantics. You posted a picture of a standard magnetic field with parallel mostly uniform lines along the side and implied this is what a magnetic field looks like. You implied there is no center and yet we have proof the forces always move to a center.
My question is simple, if there is no center then why is there ample proof the forces always move towards a center between the poles. I'm not sure how one can claim others are misguided when they imply the same thing using slightly different terms. Is there a center between the poles the forces move towards or not?.
AC
No, there is a center between what you call poles, but actually there are no real poles, just a magnetic field. Or
B vector field. And the Lorentz force direction results from the cross product of that
B vector and current (q
v). For the geometry of a bar magnet the resulting Lorentz
F happens to point towards the midline, but nothing is peculiar or special about the center of the magnet.
This is what is taught. Because you fail to understand it, don't claim it is wrong, or something else. This "neutral" point on the outside of a bar magnet is pretty useless anyway. Where in useful applications to you see it? I've never seen a magnetic circuit built to accommodate it. Look at how PMs are applied in motors and generators. Even refrigerator magnets leave the sides free.
I'd appreciate if you'd stop claiming I mean or imply something other than what I say (type). And please read what I post as you repeated my reply #3 in your reply #28. Why?
bi
Perhaps this may help-
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.09, 20:39:58
Perhaps this may help-
Pm
I am talking about this:
https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=HRzgcA1K0LYBxUD9
bi
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.09, 20:01:11
Bi,
I'm sorry to be so late in responding but I had some issues come up unexpectedly!
The right hand diagram you show also demonstrates the attraction or repulsion of the magnetic field in the perpendicular and the resultant force direction. I would agree that as a result we should see the wire move towards or away form the PM field. What I question is the reason why the wire seeks the center or the PM when in the attraction mode? In my way of looking at it, the wire would seem to want to be unstable in the attraction mode and would seek the opposite pole instead of locking in the center. The only way IMO the wire would attract to the center would be as a result of a reduction in the opposite PM field at that physical point.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Pm,
I've tried my best to explain it. Please reread. And look up some other Lorentz force tutorials. I'll say more and hope to help.
You say
Quotereduction in the opposite PM field at that physical point.
There is only one magnetic field in the space around the magnet due to the magnet. At every physical point in that field (space) there is a single
B vector. That
B vector represents the magnitude (tesla or webers/meter
2) and direction of the magnetic field at that point. If there is a moving charge at that point in the field (as in the current in the wire), a reaction occurs called Lorentz
F which has a direction and magnitude (
B×q
v). The wire will move until it encounters an obstacle. In this case, the obstacle is the body of the magnet. The location where it comes to rest against the body of the magnet is call a stable detent. If the current carrying wire is in the bar magnet's magnetic field, it is attracted towards the magnet. That's why when you reverse the current, the wire doesn't repel away from the magnet, but moves to the magnet's opposite side to the new stable detent.
Stable detent implies that any deviation from that position will result is a force to return it to the stable detent. Whereas an unstable detent is an equilibrium point where any deviation in position results in a force separating it further. In this case, I think such unstable detent would be at a corner. Theoretically the current carrying wire could be placed there and stay there until the slightest deviation, which makes it practically impossible.
And, the stable detent, middle of the magnet side, is not a neutral point. It has a
B vector, a current and a Lorentz
F. That force holds the wire tight against the magnet surface. When you run the demonstration, try to pull the away from the magnet. You'll see it is stuck there requiring substantial pull to separate. Not what I would call a neutral zone.
I suggest you do the experiment yourself. I think you'd better understand what I'm talking about.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 14:52:50
Brad,
I enjoy discussions. And would like to continue. But these folks have the power and will delete my messages. I hate when I spend time and effort composing a reply to have thrown in the bit bucket.
Cheers,
bi
I find it hard to believe that those here who run the forum, would delete any of your posts.
I would hope this is not the case.
Brad
Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4661.msg112047#msg112047 date=1715288390
QuoteThere is only one magnetic field in the space around the magnet due to the magnet.
I would disagree with that.
There are two fields around the body of a PM, where one field has a positive charge (so to speak), and the other a negative charge (so to speak)
QuoteAt every physical point in that field (space) there is a single B vector.
Once again, i disagree.
The image below is incorrect, and does not show what a magnetic field around a PM body is.
QuoteThat B vector represents the magnitude (tesla or webers/meter2) and direction of the magnetic field at that point.
Once again, i disagree.
The diagram below does not show the !direction! of the magnetic field.
What we call the magnetic field, is a field of two separate !charges!, which are pinned in space, and not to the PMs body.
This is why the homopolar generator sees no charge separation across the disk when the magnet is spun, but sees a charge separation across the disk when the disk is spun.
QuoteIf there is a moving charge at that point in the field (as in the current in the wire), a reaction occurs called Lorentz F which has a direction and magnitude (B×qv). The wire will move until it encounters an obstacle.
If there is only one magnetic field around the body of a PM, and if at every point in that field there is a single B vector, then what is this obstacle?
QuoteAnd, the stable detent, middle of the magnet side, is not a neutral point.
But it is, as that center point of the magnet cannot induce an emf in a coil, like each end of the magnet can.
The field at the center of a PMs body, is a mix of both fields that exist around the PMs body, and has a net field value of 0, which is why it cannot induce an emf into a coil when passed across a coil.
QuoteIt has a B vector, a current and a Lorentz F. That force holds the wire tight against the magnet surface.
The wire sticks there as there is no net field, just the same as the wire would stick to any unmagnetized ferromagnetic material.
The current carrying wire is repelled by the magnetic field around each end of the magnet, and is attracted to the PMs ferromagnetic body where the net field is 0, which is at the center point of the magnets body. With the current flowing in one direction through the wire, the wire may rotate CW to the center of the PMs body. If the current is flowing in the opposite direction through the wire, the wire may rotate CCW to the center of the PMs body.
QuoteThat's why when you reverse the current, the wire doesn't repel away from the magnet, but moves to the magnet's opposite side to the new stable detent.
Actually, the wire is repelled away from the magnets fields, regardless of which field the current carrying wire is in, or which direction the current is flowing through the wire, and is attracted to the point where the net field value is 0- at the center of the two fields.
QuoteIf the current carrying wire is in the bar magnet's magnetic field, it is attracted towards the magnet.
Actually, PMs experiment shows it being repelled by the magnets field, and coming to rest where the field has a net value of 0--at the center between the two fields.
QuoteI suggest you do the experiment yourself. I think you'd better understand what I'm talking about.
I have done many experiments, which confirm everything i say, where there is a field net value of 0 at the center of the two fields around a PM.
The PM is separating some form of charge that exists all around us, and the fact that PMs exhibit the same forces in space, also tells us that this !charge! exists in all space in the universe.
Or are we to believe that the PM it self is spewing out a continual stream of something?, where oddly enough, that something that is being continually spewed out at one end of the magnet is opposite to that at the other end of the magnet? We need like !charges! to repel, and unlike !charges! to attract-do we not? So, the field around a PM cannot be the same all around the PM as you state. Everything has an equal and opposite, so how can the field around the PM body be the same all around the PM body?
Brad
Sorry Brad,
No comment.
bi
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.10, 01:02:12
I find it hard to believe that those here who run the forum, would delete any of your posts.
I would hope this is not the case.
Brad
Sucks, doesn't it.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.10, 03:02:51
Sucks, doesn't it.
bi
I am pretty sure that any civil conversations would not be deleted.
So, looking at the diagram below that i just threw together, we can see what the result would be if the long rod/bar magnet was passed across the cores of each 3 coils in their relative position.
How exactly can this happen if the field is the same all around the magnet, and where the B field is the same passing all 3 cores of the coil?
The arrow of the B field depicts that the B field is the same along the length of the magnet, and will cut through each of the 3 cores in the same direction, and yet the left and right coils have opposite sines, and the center coil produces no emf at all.
Now, replace this single field theory with the one i believe to be correct, and what would the scope show? O0
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.10, 08:55:11
I am pretty sure that any civil conversations would not be deleted.
So, looking at the diagram below that i just threw together, we can see what the result would be if the long rod/bar magnet was passed across the cores of each 3 coils in their relative position.
How exactly can this happen if the field is the same all around the magnet, and where the B field is the same passing all 3 cores of the coil?
The arrow of the B field depicts that the B field is the same along the length of the magnet, and will cut through each of the 3 cores in the same direction, and yet the left and right coils have opposite sines, and the center coil produces no emf at all.
Now, replace this single field theory with the one i believe to be correct, and what would the scope show? O0
Brad
Hi Brad,
Since you asked twice, I risk admin punishment, which contrary to your belief, has occurred.
Do not make the assumption that:
Quotethe B field is the same passing all 3 cores of the coil?
Obviously it is not or all 3 scopeshots would be the same.
The
B vectors are significantly different for the 3 areas where each coil/core is located as evidenced by the curved field lines. Only in the middle is the
B vector parallel to the magnetic axis. Towards either end, the
B vector will have a angle and therefore
B has a perpendicular component.
Attached is the mathematical expression for the induced voltage, Faraday's Law. Notice cosθ. This term takes voltage to zero when motion is parallel to
B.
Simple as that.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 20:59:50
Hi Pm,
I've tried my best to explain it. Please reread. And look up some other Lorentz force tutorials. I'll say more and hope to help.
You say There is only one magnetic field in the space around the magnet due to the magnet. At every physical point in that field (space) there is a single B vector. That B vector represents the magnitude (tesla or webers/meter2) and direction of the magnetic field at that point. If there is a moving charge at that point in the field (as in the current in the wire), a reaction occurs called Lorentz F which has a direction and magnitude (B×qv). The wire will move until it encounters an obstacle. In this case, the obstacle is the body of the magnet. The location where it comes to rest against the body of the magnet is call a stable detent. If the current carrying wire is in the bar magnet's magnetic field, it is attracted towards the magnet. That's why when you reverse the current, the wire doesn't repel away from the magnet, but moves to the magnet's opposite side to the new stable detent.
Stable detent implies that any deviation from that position will result is a force to return it to the stable detent. Whereas an unstable detent is an equilibrium point where any deviation in position results in a force separating it further. In this case, I think such unstable detent would be at a corner. Theoretically the current carrying wire could be placed there and stay there until the slightest deviation, which makes it practically impossible.
And, the stable detent, middle of the magnet side, is not a neutral point. It has a B vector, a current and a Lorentz F. That force holds the wire tight against the magnet surface. When you run the demonstration, try to pull the away from the magnet. You'll see it is stuck there requiring substantial pull to separate. Not what I would call a neutral zone.
I suggest you do the experiment yourself. I think you'd better understand what I'm talking about.
bi
Bi,
I understand what you are saying but have difficulty justifying your proposed result. For example, you have not shown any consideration for the "field" inside the body of the PM. We all know that flux takes the path of least magnetic resistance so can we correctly assume that the flux density in the PM body is equal to the flux density outside the PM in the air? To be conservative we would have to say yes. If so, then I have a problem with your 'stable detent' in the center of the bar magnet if considering the high flux density in the PM core.
BTW, I have done these experiments years ago as both of the videos are mine. It has been over this long period of time that I have considered exactly what is going on and I believe that the answer lies in the following ferrocell and CRT measurement examples. These are seen in the pdf book by Ken Wheeler "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" which can be downloaded free on the web. There are many more in the book which are copyrighted so I won't use any of them here.
What is seen in Ken's work and in these examples is what he calls the "dielectric plane" (that aligns with the Bloch wall) and magnetic fields both divergent and convergent. It is the
'divergent' 'convergent' fields that IMO are responsible for the wire's simple response to the PM. IOW, these N and S fields do not flow across the body of the PM as shown in the many FEMM sims and other diagrams we have viewed, but rather diverge out the ends of the magnet and converge at the center of the magnet as these ferrocells show.
Edit: Just realized I had an error above with the fields!
Regards,
Pm
Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4661.msg112056#msg112056 date=1715345943
Hi Brad,
QuoteThe B vectors are significantly different for the 3 areas where each coil/core is located as evidenced by the curved field lines.
But in reply 45, you said this-->(At every physical point in that field (space) there is a single B vector.)
So are there significantly different B vectors through the field, or is there a single B vector at every physical point in the field?
The slightly curved field lines do not depict the actual field, nor would they play a roll in the field the cores of the coils would experience.
As the magnetic field gets closer to the ferromagnetic cores of the coils, the vectors of the field would change, and point in toward the cores in all 3 positions, meaning all 3 coil cores would see the very same field vectors, when using your single field example. This would result in the same sine wave produced on each scope trace, which is not what we see. You can use magnetic viewing film to see the vectors change when a ferromagnetic rod is placed in the same position as the coil cores, and see that all 3 vectors end up the same-there is no curve in the field, but only a right angle turn right into the coil core.
Only when the two field theory is used, would you get an opposite sine at each end coil, and a 0 value at the center coil.
Everything has an equal and opposite, and the magnetic field is no different, where it must have an equal and opposite field.
This also clearly explains why the like fields repel each other, and unlike fields attract each other- the same as any other charges do.
QuoteSimple as that.
No, not so simple.
The magnetic field model that is presented is wrong, and was wrong from the start.
The fact that they( the science gurus) cannot explain, or have no idea what the magnetic field actually is, is because they are using the wrong field model.
My two field theory explains it very clearly. It explains exactly why like poles repel and unlike poles attract. It explains what the magnetic force is, which is a !yet to be named! field of energy that exists all around us, in every point of space, where a charge separation is taking place within that field of energy, around the body of the PM.
The two field theory works in every single model and device we use today, and it also explains what the magnetic force is--your model does not.
This field of energy could be this dark energy they talk of. It could be the either field they speak of, or it could be the vacuum energy field they speak of.
This of course is only my opinion, and that of a few others.
But it is a testable theory that always shows positive and confirming results every time.
The two field theory never fails in any test it is put under.
Brad
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.10, 13:40:46
Bi,
I understand what you are saying but have difficulty justifying your proposed result. For example, you have not shown any consideration for the "field" inside the body of the PM. We all know that flux takes the path of least magnetic resistance so can we correctly assume that the flux density in the PM body is equal to the flux density outside the PM in the air? To be conservative we would have to say yes. If so, then I have a problem with your 'stable detent' in the center of the bar magnet if considering the high flux density in the PM core.
BTW, I have done these experiments years ago as both of the videos are mine. It has been over this long period of time that I have considered exactly what is going on and I believe that the answer lies in the following ferrocell and CRT measurement examples. These are seen in the pdf book by Ken Wheeler "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" which can be downloaded free on the web. There are many more in the book which are copyrighted so I won't use any of them here.
What is seen in Ken's work and in these examples is what he calls the "dielectric plane" (that aligns with the Bloch wall) and magnetic fields both divergent and convergent. It is the 'divergent' fields that IMO are responsible for the wire's simple response to the PM. IOW, these N and S fields do not flow across the body of the PM as shown in the many FEMM sims and other diagrams we have viewed, but rather diverge out the ends of the magnet and converge at the center of the magnet as these ferrocells show.
Regards,
Pm
I think your pictures are a good example of how better measurement tools yield better results.
The iron filing field pattern bistander is showing is completely outdated and some scientists broke the cardinal rule of science. We cannot measure something using a tool which is biased by the thing were trying to measure. This is why more advanced non-ferromagnetic sensors show a different field pattern.
Another problem relates to the hypocrisy of some science. For example, they tell us a magnet is made of millions of smaller magnets relating to domains and electron spins. Fair enough, but then they completely ignore what they just claimed and use an amateur field model of the magnet field as a single unit. If the magnet is in fact millions of smaller magnets then it should be modeled as such. So in effect what were really being shown in textbooks is the lazy mans version of a magnetic field.
I found that my infinite element analysis tends to agree more with your pictures. Logically, because any side wall is a boundary condition made of countless smaller magnets in series the field should continually curl around into itself and the center. For example, stack many small magnets then measure the field. Each individual magnet field joins with the bulk of magnets internally but also curls externally into itself and the neighboring magnets. The field ends up looking something like the picture below.
We could also note that most FE devices like the Wesley Gary device generally always use compound magnets. Not one big magnet but many smaller magnets stacked on top of one another. Many inventors also claimed to heat parts on the magnets in effect demagnetizing a part of them. Many inventors also used non-magnetic spacers to separate some magnets. At which point we can start to understand how primitive the conventional view of the magnetic field is as one unit.
AC
Tinman
QuoteThis of course is only my opinion, and that of a few others.
But it is a testable theory that always shows positive and confirming results every time.
The two field theory never fails in any test it is put under.
Indeed, there are two kinds of people. Some who read something in a textbook and believe it hook, line and sinker. Then there are others like some here who feel compelled to actually test theories using real experiments.
QuoteOnly when the two field theory is used, would you get an opposite sine at each end coil, and a 0 value at the center coil.
Everything has an equal and opposite, and the magnetic field is no different, where it must have an equal and opposite field.
This also clearly explains why the like fields repel each other, and unlike fields attract each other- the same as any other charges do.
Coincidentally, in the early 1900's when many FE devices and concepts were invented much of the present science didn't even exist. The majority of stuff which some feel is so important was non-existent yet the inventors still succeeded. In fact, many of these inventors were using language similar to yours.
The Wesley Gary patent in 1879 is a good example, http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm
AC
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.10, 13:40:46
Bi,
I understand what you are saying but have difficulty justifying your proposed result. For example, you have not shown any consideration for the "field" inside the body of the PM. We all know that flux takes the path of least magnetic resistance so can we correctly assume that the flux density in the PM body is equal to the flux density outside the PM in the air? To be conservative we would have to say yes. If so, then I have a problem with your 'stable detent' in the center of the bar magnet if considering the high flux density in the PM core.
BTW, I have done these experiments years ago as both of the videos are mine. It has been over this long period of time that I have considered exactly what is going on and I believe that the answer lies in the following ferrocell and CRT measurement examples. These are seen in the pdf book by Ken Wheeler "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" which can be downloaded free on the web. There are many more in the book which are copyrighted so I won't use any of them here.
What is seen in Ken's work and in these examples is what he calls the "dielectric plane" (that aligns with the Bloch wall) and magnetic fields both divergent and convergent. It is the 'divergent' fields that IMO are responsible for the wire's simple response to the PM. IOW, these N and S fields do not flow across the body of the PM as shown in the many FEMM sims and other diagrams we have viewed, but rather diverge out the ends of the magnet and converge at the center of the magnet as these ferrocells show.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Pm,
Quoteyou have not shown any consideration for the "field" inside the body of the PM.
Why do so? I accept the body of work done over the several centuries by science including recently where they are able to actually image down to the molecule level. All this supports the domains. And besides, we cannot access the interior of the magnet without altering it.
QuoteWe all know that flux takes the path of least magnetic resistance so can we correctly assume that the flux density in the PM body is equal to the flux density outside the PM in the air?
No. If we enclose the magnet in a gaussian surface theory tells us the net flux (not flux density) crossing that surface is zero. So the flux out of the magnet is equal to the flux into the magnet. Flux, not flux density.
If you choose to believe what crackpot Ken Wheeler teaches, I have no help for you, just sympathy. Please reconsider.
bi
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.10, 14:19:22
But in reply 45, you said this-->(At every physical point in that field (space) there is a single B vector.)
So are there significantly different B vectors through the field, or is there a single B vector at every physical point in the field?
The slightly curved field lines do not depict the actual field, nor would they play a roll in the field the cores of the coils would experience.
As the magnetic field gets closer to the ferromagnetic cores of the coils, the vectors of the field would change, and point in toward the cores in all 3 positions, meaning all 3 coil cores would see the very same field vectors, when using your single field example. This would result in the same sine wave produced on each scope trace, which is not what we see. You can use magnetic viewing film to see the vectors change when a ferromagnetic rod is placed in the same position as the coil cores, and see that all 3 vectors end up the same-there is no curve in the field, but only a right angle turn right into the coil core.
Only when the two field theory is used, would you get an opposite sine at each end coil, and a 0 value at the center coil.
Everything has an equal and opposite, and the magnetic field is no different, where it must have an equal and opposite field.
This also clearly explains why the like fields repel each other, and unlike fields attract each other- the same as any other charges do.
No, not so simple.
The magnetic field model that is presented is wrong, and was wrong from the start.
The fact that they( the science gurus) cannot explain, or have no idea what the magnetic field actually is, is because they are using the wrong field model.
My two field theory explains it very clearly. It explains exactly why like poles repel and unlike poles attract. It explains what the magnetic force is, which is a !yet to be named! field of energy that exists all around us, in every point of space, where a charge separation is taking place within that field of energy, around the body of the PM.
The two field theory works in every single model and device we use today, and it also explains what the magnetic force is--your model does not.
This field of energy could be this dark energy they talk of. It could be the either field they speak of, or it could be the vacuum energy field they speak of.
This of course is only my opinion, and that of a few others.
But it is a testable theory that always shows positive and confirming results every time.
The two field theory never fails in any test it is put under.
Brad
Hi Brad,
Yes, your opinion.
Note the image attached. Simulated vs actual measurements at various locations in the magnet's field of the
B vectors. They are all different, in direction, obviously, and most likely in magnitude. I think that addresses your question.
bi
Regarding field of stacked magnets.
Below are two images, one from reply #54 and one from:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Magnetic-force-vs-distance-between-magnets-and-plate_fig5_284285242
FYI.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.10, 16:13:08
Hi Pm,
No. If we enclose the magnet in a gaussian surface theory tells us the net flux (not flux density) crossing that surface is zero. So the flux out of the magnet is equal to the flux into the magnet. Flux, not flux density.
Exactly! So we agree that the flux outside the magnet equals the flux inside the magnet? If so, the flux inside the magnet at the point where the wire is touching the center on the outside surface of the magnet must be considered IMO. Based on the flux fields your graphics depict, the flux
density inside the magnet must be greater than the flux
density for the same given area outside the magnet because of the obvious gradients seen in the flux field on the outside! This in itself must have an influence on the wire's position verses polarity.
Quote
If you choose to believe what crackpot Ken Wheeler teaches, I have no help for you, just sympathy. Please reconsider.
bi
I do not adhere to all that Ken proposes however, we must not through out the baby with the bathwater as they say! The images shown in my post are not Ken's but are from other researchers. So, I assume you place no value or importance in the ferrofluid results? I would like to hear what your explanation of what the views are showing if this is the case.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.10, 19:38:01
Exactly! So we agree that the flux outside the magnet equals the flux inside the magnet? If so, the flux inside the magnet at the point where the wire is touching the center on the outside surface of the magnet must be considered IMO. Based on the flux fields your graphics depict, the flux density inside the magnet must be greater than the flux density for the same given area outside the magnet because of the obvious gradients seen in the flux field on the outside! This in itself must have an influence on the wire's position verses polarity.
I do not adhere to all that Ken proposes however, we must not through out the baby with the bathwater as they say! The images shown in my post are not Ken's but are from other researchers. So, I assume you place no value or importance in the ferrofluid results? I would like to hear what your explanation of what the views are showing if this is the case.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Pm,
QuoteSo we agree that the flux outside the magnet equals the flux inside the magnet?
I am unwilling to agree. I stick by my statement, not yours which compares flux, a 2 deminisional quantity, to volume, 3 deminisional.
Quoteflux inside the magnet at the point where the wire is touching the center on the outside surface of the magnet must be considered
For the Lorentz force, I don't think so.
Notice, when I described the external field I qualified by saying the field was due to the magnet. In reality the current in the wire will make a magnetic field around the wire. This distorts the magnetic field of the magnet. In motors and generators, this effect is called armature distortion. Here it is likely small and reasonably neglected. I mention it because when the current carrying wire is pressed against the magnet surface, that field from the current will distort the field inside the magnet body. Here again, I suspect the magnitude of
B in the magnet vs the wire's field makes the effect negligible.
QuoteI assume you place no value or importance in the ferrofluid results?
I wouldn't say no value. But I certainly disagree with Wheeler's interpretations. I do not see magnetic flux or field patterns in the ferrocell images. I spent much time discussing the subject on another forum. I even constructed a primitive ferrocell. I'm not sure what, if any, value they process.
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13672-enlightened-magnetism-the-full-proof-of-ken-wheeler-s-theories/page75#post512504
Start with the last post #1116.
bi
bistander
QuoteNotice, when I described the external field I qualified by saying the field was due to the magnet. In reality the current in the wire will make a magnetic field around the wire. This distorts the magnetic field of the magnet. In motors and generators, this effect is called armature distortion. Here it is likely small and reasonably neglected. I mention it because when the current carrying wire is pressed against the magnet surface, that field from the current will distort the field inside the magnet body. Here again, I suspect the magnitude of B in the magnet vs the wire's field makes the effect negligible.
Interesting stuff, I did a sequential key word/phrase search and learned some cool stuff.
So armature distortion is actually called armature reaction where the armature flux affects or distorts the main field flux. However this relates directly to a phenomena called the Magnetic Neutral Axis (MNA) and Geometrical Neutral Axis (GNA) which should sound familiar, keyword neutral. Most competent engineers also recognize what is called a neutral plane and/or zone which bisects the center between two poles shown below. So let's be clear this is not a foreign concept.
The GNA simply draws a visual neutral line between two poles for reference. While the MNA describes a real magnetic field neutral line which bisects the two N and S polar fields. It just tells us where the fields are displaced beyond this center line or plane.
I just find it strange that some would have us believe there is no neutral line when much of motor/generator theory would seem to be based on it. Can you explain why basically all the most competent electrical engineers recognize a Magnetic Neutral Axis?.
Reference
https:/https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/armature-reaction-in-dc-machines//circuitglobe.com/armature-reaction-in-dc-generator.html
https://electricalacademia.com/dc-machines/armature-reaction-dc-machine/
AC
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.10, 16:29:37
Hi Brad,
Yes, your opinion.
Note the image attached. Simulated vs actual measurements at various locations in the magnet's field of the B vectors. They are all different, in direction, obviously, and most likely in magnitude. I think that addresses your question.
bi
I said (As the magnetic field gets closer to the ferromagnetic cores of the coils, the vectors of the field would change, and point in toward the cores in all 3 positions, meaning all 3 coil cores would see the very same field vectors, when using your single field example.)
Reading what you said at EF, from the link you posted-Quote:
QuoteIn my opinion, you are altering the magnetic flux pattern when you introduce the iron cylinder into the magnet circuit. This action changes the flux lines cutting the coil
So you would agree that in the diagram below, the depicted flux line vectors would change as the field got closer to the coil cores.
Thus, the B field vectors as depicted mean very little when in the presence of the coil cores, and would not represent the actual B field vectors.
You would also agree that the field that is cutting the loops of the coil, is that of the induced field into the core of the coils, and not that of the field around the magnet.
So, if the field that is being induced into the cores of all 3 coils is the same field, then how is it that we get totally opposite EMFs induced in each end coils, and nothing induced into the middle coil?
Looking at my second scribble below, would you not agree that the B field would look much the same for all 3 coils in the first pic?, where the slight curve in the B field vector along the length of the magnet becomes null and void when in the presence of the coil cores.
In that case, where all 3 cores are induced by the same field, then all 3 scope traces should show the same sine, but where the emf produced at the center coil maybe slightly lower in potential.
Knowing that it is the induced field into the core that is generating the emf across the coils, and not the field around the PM it self, and knowing that it is the same field induced into the coils cores, then we should see the same sine for each channel of the scope, but where as the emf value across the center coil may be a lower value, due to a less dense field at that point.
But we do not see that. We see an opposite sine for the two end coils, and no emf at all in the center coil. Even if we removed the two outer coils, so as the B field flux line vectors are not distorted by them, and the center coil core is induced with the total flux at the center of the magnets body, no emf is induced into the center coil when the magnet is passed over it.
Knowing all this can only mean 1 thing--the two field theory is correct.
Brad.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.11, 00:37:26
bistander
Interesting stuff, I did a sequential key word/phrase search and learned some cool stuff.
So armature distortion is actually called armature reaction where the armature flux affects or distorts the main field flux. However this relates directly to a phenomena called the Magnetic Neutral Axis (MNA) and Geometrical Neutral Axis (GNA) which should sound familiar, keyword neutral. Most competent engineers also recognize what is called a neutral plane and/or zone which bisects the center between two poles shown below. So let's be clear this is not a foreign concept.
The GNA simply draws a visual neutral line between two poles for reference. While the MNA describes a real magnetic field neutral line which bisects the two N and S polar fields. It just tells us where the fields are displaced beyond this center line or plane.
I just find it strange that some would have us believe there is no neutral line when much of motor/generator theory would seem to be based on it. Can you explain why basically all the most competent electrical engineers recognize a Magnetic Neutral Axis?.
Reference
https:/https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/armature-reaction-in-dc-machines//circuitglobe.com/armature-reaction-in-dc-generator.html
https://electricalacademia.com/dc-machines/armature-reaction-dc-machine/
AC
No AC, I can't explain that. Can you tell me where the neutral line is in the magnetic field from the current in the wire? See attached.
bi
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.11, 02:06:32
I said (As the magnetic field gets closer to the ferromagnetic cores of the coils, the vectors of the field would change, and point in toward the cores in all 3 positions, meaning all 3 coil cores would see the very same field vectors, when using your single field example.)
Reading what you said at EF, from the link you posted-Quote:
So you would agree that in the diagram below, the depicted flux line vectors would change as the field got closer to the coil cores.
Thus, the B field vectors as depicted mean very little when in the presence of the coil cores, and would not represent the actual B field vectors.
You would also agree that the field that is cutting the loops of the coil, is that of the induced field into the core of the coils, and not that of the field around the magnet.
So, if the field that is being induced into the cores of all 3 coils is the same field, then how is it that we get totally opposite EMFs induced in each end coils, and nothing induced into the middle coil?
Looking at my second scribble below, would you not agree that the B field would look much the same for all 3 coils in the first pic?, where the slight curve in the B field vector along the length of the magnet becomes null and void when in the presence of the coil cores.
In that case, where all 3 cores are induced by the same field, then all 3 scope traces should show the same sine, but where the emf produced at the center coil maybe slightly lower in potential.
Knowing that it is the induced field into the core that is generating the emf across the coils, and not the field around the PM it self, and knowing that it is the same field induced into the coils cores, then we should see the same sine for each channel of the scope, but where as the emf value across the center coil may be a lower value, due to a less dense field at that point.
But we do not see that. We see an opposite sine for the two end coils, and no emf at all in the center coil. Even if we removed the two outer coils, so as the B field flux line vectors are not distorted by them, and the center coil core is induced with the total flux at the center of the magnets body, no emf is induced into the center coil when the magnet is passed over it.
Knowing all this can only mean 1 thing--the two field theory is correct.
Brad.
Brad,
Your cores are not part of much of a magnetic circuit, so hard telling what's actually going on.
But again, per admin's rule, I not going to argue with you. Just leave it.
bi
ps. It'd be nice of you to give a link for context when quoting me. Thanks.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.11, 03:26:53
Brad,
Your cores are not part of much of a magnetic circuit, so hard telling what's actually going on.
But again, per admin's rule, I not going to argue with you. Just leave it.
bi
ps. It'd be nice of you to give a link for context when quoting me. Thanks.
I was using your words from the link to the thread you posted.
page 1, reply 4
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/energetic-forum-discussion/renewable-energy/13672-enlightened-magnetism-the-full-proof-of-ken-wheeler-s-theories#post512504
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.11, 00:37:26
bistander
Interesting stuff, I did a sequential key word/phrase search and learned some cool stuff.
So armature distortion is actually called armature reaction where the armature flux affects or distorts the main field flux. However this relates directly to a phenomena called the Magnetic Neutral Axis (MNA) and Geometrical Neutral Axis (GNA) which should sound familiar, keyword neutral. Most competent engineers also recognize what is called a neutral plane and/or zone which bisects the center between two poles shown below. So let's be clear this is not a foreign concept.
The GNA simply draws a visual neutral line between two poles for reference. While the MNA describes a real magnetic field neutral line which bisects the two N and S polar fields. It just tells us where the fields are displaced beyond this center line or plane.
I just find it strange that some would have us believe there is no neutral line when much of motor/generator theory would seem to be based on it. Can you explain why basically all the most competent electrical engineers recognize a Magnetic Neutral Axis?.
Reference
https:/https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/armature-reaction-in-dc-machines//circuitglobe.com/armature-reaction-in-dc-generator.html
https://electricalacademia.com/dc-machines/armature-reaction-dc-machine/
AC
I believe the below would be more accurate.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.11, 06:29:25
I believe the below would be more accurate.
It is.
In this entire discussion I see imprecise definitions of the Neutral Zone, which is a region of space where a ferromagnetic test object does NOT experience any net force in one dimension.
Since the force of magnetic attraction depends in the gradient of magnetic flux density (B) and not on the magnitude of B itself, it is possible to have a very strong B at the Neutral Zone and zero net force in one dimension.
It seems to me that TinMan knows all this.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.11, 03:26:53
Your cores are not part of much of a magnetic circuit, so hard telling what's actually going on.
But again, per admin's rule, I not going to argue with you. Just leave it.
I don't think there is an admin's rule against scientific discourse here,... only against non-scientific discourse.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.11, 07:53:27
I don't think there is an admin's rule against scientific discourse here,... only against non-scientific discourse.
Talk with Chet about his directive to me.
bi
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.11, 07:48:58
It is.
In this entire discussion I see imprecise definitions of the Neutral Zone, which is a region of space where a ferromagnetic test object does NOT experience any net force in one dimension.
Since the force of magnetic attraction depends in the gradient of magnetic flux density (B) and not on the magnitude of B itself, it is possible to have a very strong B at the Neutral Zone and zero net force in one dimension.
It seems to me that TinMan knows all this.
Hi verpies,
QuoteIt is.
Can you tell me what the red and blue arrows represent?
QuoteNeutral Zone, which is a region of space where a ferromagnetic test object does NOT experience any net force in one dimension.
Does this apply to a point in space?
I've been discussing a moving charge or current here, not a ferromagnetic test object. Does talk of a neutral zone make any sense?
Does a bar magnet alone in space have a neutral zone?
Thanks.
bi
Bi,
Here is quick setup and test of Brad's proposal of a bar magnet's induction into three coils that has been reduced to a single coil as he also proposed. The sweep of the stacked bar magnet was done by hand across the polyurethane spacer/slider that was attached to a coil with a 1/4" square ferrite core to guarantee the distance from the PM to coil was constant. Care was then taken to ensure as constant a sweep speed as possible and the current samples in the coil were stored. IMO, the results show what we have both been saying in that there is a reduction in the magnetic field in the center of the bar magnet.
Regards,
Pm
I'll chime in...
Regarding Tinman's posted image "FIELD DISTORTION.JPG", if the image is drawn with the core moved one core width to the left and then one core width to the right, you will see that the field conditions (vectors and strength) in those two positions are very similar. As it requires varying field conditions to induce current in the coil, very little coil output is observed as the coil is moved left and right between field conditions that remain, for the most part, unchanged. This is particularly moreso in the area of maximum parallelism of the field vectors. However, given enough gain on a scope, the left right motion will be detectable because the vectors are not perfectly parallel.
Regarding the idea of having two separate poles of opposite polarity at opposite ends of a magnet with some sort of null in the middle, this idea appears to be disproved when the field is probed with a Hall effect probe. Place the tip of a Hall probe (gaussmeter) against the north face of a cylindrical magnet with the north face of the magnet pointing toward you and the probe's measurement axis also pointing toward you. Put a red dot on the side of the probe facing you. The probe is then used to follow the vectors and path of a given "line of force" as is typically depicted. As the probe is lifted off the face of the magnet it must simultaneously be rotated in order to follow the vectors that draw out the hairpin curve of the field line as it makes its curve toward the opposite end of the magnet. As the probe is moved away from you down the side of the magnet, the red dot is now facing away from you. As we reach the opposite end of the magnet, we must again rotate the probe to follow the field line's vectors as they curl around and point towards the south pole. The red dot on the probe tip is now against the south face of the magnet.
During the entire time the probe is used to follow this imaginary field line, the indicated polarity and field strength remain constant. Although it is difficult to follow a single "line", particularly in the area near the magnetic poles where the vectors are changing significantly, once the probe is a few probe widths away from the magnetic pole ends, the field vectors/lines become more parallel to the magnetic axis and little change in field strength is observed as the probe is slid along side the magnet to the opposing pole. There is no detected null in the middle of the magnet and the polarity of the field indicated by the probe remains constant throughout.
The hall effect probe measures the direction (CW or CCW) and to what degree an electron is deflected in a conductor. What the above experiment tells us is that if we could see through the magnet, and could also see electrons, we would see that electrons are being deflected counterclockwise at the north pole of the magnet and that the electrons are also being deflected counterclockwise at the south pole, as we look through the magnet's north face to the opposing pole. Of course, if we flip the magnet so that the south pole is facing us, it will appear that the electrons are being deflected clockwise at the south pole and as we look through the magnet we also see the electrons deflected clockwise at the north pole. Imagine a solid bar rotating on its long axis, from the perspective of either end or the other, both ends are rotating the same direction, though from one end or the other, it would appear both are CW or CCW.
Regarding viewing film and ferrocells, we are dealing with optical phenomena. Both of these are somewhat like iron filings on steroids in that due to the particle size involved, we have the additional handicap of optical effects due to the wavelengths of light coming into play. I use the color changing film and it readily produces an image that would seem to support the "two opposite poles with some sort of null in the middle" idea. However, when the hall effect probe, with its measurement axis parallel to the magnetic axis, is slid through the region that appears as some sort of field null, no such null is detected. As above, the field remains relatively constant down the length of the magnet. In fact, more often than not, the hall probe will indicate a peak in field strength in the region of the supposed null, as that is where the field lines achieve maximum parallelism and are more so in alignment with the measurement axis.
Just my 2 cents...
PW
(//)
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.11, 14:04:44
Bi,
Here is quick setup and test of Brad's proposal of a bar magnet's induction into three coils that has been reduced to a single coil as he also proposed. The sweep of the stacked bar magnet was done by hand across the polyurethane spacer/slider that was attached to a coil with a 1/4" square ferrite core to guarantee the distance from the PM to coil was constant. Care was then taken to ensure as constant a sweep speed as possible and the current samples in the coil were stored. IMO, the results show what we have both been saying in that there is a reduction in the magnetic field in the center of the bar magnet.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Pm,
Remember
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 20:51:29
I am talking about this:
https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=HRzgcA1K0LYBxUD9
These coils (with cores) are a different situation. You're looking at Faraday's Law instead of Lorentz.
But still, I contend at the middle of side of the magnet, the external field is strong and parallel to the magnetic axis. Motion of a conductor parallel to the B vector causes cosθ to equal zero so induced voltage is zero per Faraday's Law. Displacement from the midpoint, either way, introduces a perpendicular component to the B field and will increase cosθ so induced voltage appears in a conductor moving parallel to the axis.
You don't see generators using the sides of magnets.
In the experiment to which I've been using, the current carrying wire, once having moved and positioned midway along the side, comes to rest and continues to experience a strong force against the body of the magnet. This demonstrates a strong presence of magnetic field parallel to the axis.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.11, 15:00:03
Hi Pm,
Remember
These coils (with cores) are a different situation. You're looking at Faraday's Law instead of Lorentz.
But still, I contend at the middle of side of the magnet, the external field is strong and parallel to the magnetic axis. Motion of a conductor parallel to the B vector causes cosθ to equal zero so induced voltage is zero per Faraday's Law. Displacement from the midpoint, either way, introduces a perpendicular component to the B field and will increase cosθ so induced voltage appears in a conductor moving parallel to the axis.
You don't see generators using the sides of magnets.
Not at present however, tangential induction does use the sides of PMs to induce a coil. The mmf is mostly uni-polar in this case and useful for potential OU which is what my research has focused on for quite some time.
Quote
In the experiment to which I've been using, the current carrying wire, once having moved and positioned midway along the side, comes to rest and continues to experience a strong force against the body of the magnet. This demonstrated a strong presence of magnetic field parallel to the axis.
bi
I understand and agree however, the position of the PM is this particular test was such that I tried to eliminate this rotated vector. IOW, the end of each N and S pole did not protrude beyond the outside of the coil bobbin.
To be clear, the coil assembly was held inside each pole. Referencing your vector diagram in your post #57, the high aspect ratio PM (width verses thickness) indicates the parallel vectors to be rather uniformly straight. In my test I purposely used a low aspect ratio PM assembly and with the positional limit mentioned above, we could assume the horizontal vectors should be only slightly rotated or not at all in the field of induction.
In ref to the wire position on the center of the PM and it's attraction force, it could also be caused by the action seen in my crude drawing below from the converging flux from each pole.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Added italicized.
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.11, 15:35:09
Not at present however, tangential induction does use the sides of PMs to induce a coil. The mmf is mostly uni-polar in this case and useful for potential OU which is what my research has focused on for quite some time.
I understand and agree however, the position of the PM is this particular test was such that I tried to eliminate this rotated vector. IOW, the end of each N and S pole did not protrude beyond the outside of the coil bobbin. To be clear, the coil assembly was held inside each pole. Referencing your vector diagram in your post #57, the high aspect ratio PM (width verses thickness) indicates the parallel vectors to be rather uniformly straight. In my test I purposely used a low aspect ratio PM assembly and with the positional limit mentioned above, we could assume the horizontal vectors should be only slightly rotated or not at all in the field of induction.
In ref to the wire position on the center of the PM and it's attraction force, it could also be caused by the action seen in my crude drawing below from the converging flux from each pole.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Added italicized.
Sorry Pm, I don't follow your logic about the vectors in the diagram, attached again. I also have difficulty comprehending your test.
Quote
In ref to the wire position on the center of the PM and it's attraction force, it could also be caused by the action seen in my crude drawing below from the converging flux from each pole.
Not if you believe in Lorentz force law.
bi
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.11, 15:35:09
...
In ref to the wire position on the center of the PM and it's attraction force, it could also be caused by the action seen in my crude drawing below from the converging flux from each pole.
...
PM,
If the field is as you have drawn it in your "Wire to PM.png", why does a hall probe slid from one end of the magnet to the other, with its measurement axis parallel to the magnetic axis, not detect any field nulls or polarity reversals as was noted in my previous post?
PW
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.11, 15:56:33
Sorry Pm, I don't follow your logic about the vectors in the diagram, attached again. I also have difficulty comprehending your test.
Not if you believe in Lorentz force law.
bi
Bi,
Look at the relative comparison between your vector diagram and my best guess vector diagram. My diagram is drawn 2x accurately. The center positions of the cores represent the center and outside positions plus of each core placement during the PM sweep. The spacing away from the PM is also shown. I hope this is clear enough.
If my best guess of the field vector is close, do you think it would justify the difference in induced currents seen in the test?
Edit: OOps! Forgot to post the pix!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.11, 15:59:07
PM,
If the field is as you have drawn it in your "Wire to PM.png", why does a hall probe slid from one end of the magnet to the other, with its measurement axis parallel to the magnetic axis, not detect any field nulls or polarity reversals as was noted in my previous post?
PW
PW,
I do have a hall effect device somewhere and once I find it, I will do a test on my actual setup when found.
Regards,
Pm
PW,
OK, I found my linear hall sensor HAL400 which is sensitive to the flux passing through the center of the SOT-89A package. When used in this manner, I see no flux change at the center of the stacked PM I used when spaced .50" away from the outside of the PM!! This leaves me curious about the induction tests I ran. At this point in time, I have no answer!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.11, 20:17:27
Bi,
Look at the relative comparison between your vector diagram and my best guess vector diagram. My diagram is drawn 2x accurately. The center positions of the cores represent the center and outside positions plus of each core placement during the PM sweep. The spacing away from the PM is also shown. I hope this is clear enough.
If my best guess of the field vector is close, do you think it would justify the difference in induced currents seen in the test?
Edit: OOps! Forgot to post the pix!
Regards,
Pm
Yes Pm, I do. Thanks for posting the clearer diagram.
It is unknown how the ferromagnetic core distorts the field of the magnet as Tinman noted, but I imagine it would be like a mirror image about the midline.
Also, if you get your Hall effect device working, please attempt to verify field shape as depicted in reply #58.
bi
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.11, 21:19:14
PW,
OK, I found my linear hall sensor HAL400 which is sensitive to the flux passing through the center of the SOT-89A package. When used in this manner, I see no flux change at the center of the stacked PM I used when spaced .50" away from the outside of the PM!! This leaves me curious about the induction tests I ran. At this point in time, I have no answer!
Regards,
Pm
PM,
The mapping I have performed using the Hall sensor on my gaussmeter appears to indicate that the field geometry is as it has always been traditionally depicted (i.e., as bistander has been depicting and simulating all along). It also appears to rule out the idea of having two separate (and opposite?) poles at opposing ends with a null of some kind in the center.
Anyone with a gaussmeter or Hall sensor can confirm these observations. I also recommend a piece of color changing viewing film to visualize the "apparent" null/bloch wall that appears with viewing film and ferrocells so that area in particular can be measured with the Hall sensor.
(I really like the color changing viewing film. It clears itself instantly when the magnet is removed, without leaving remnant smudges as often happens with the green stuff. The ones I have came laminated in fairly rigid plastic with a nice case to boot...)
PW
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.11, 22:53:45
PM,
The mapping I have performed using the Hall sensor on my gaussmeter appears to indicate that the field geometry is as it has always been traditionally depicted (i.e., as bistander has been depicting and simulating all along). It also appears to rule out the idea of having two separate (and opposite?) poles at opposing ends with a null of some kind in the center.
Anyone with a gaussmeter or Hall sensor can confirm these observations. I also recommend a piece of color changing viewing film to visualize the "apparent" null/bloch wall that appears with viewing film and ferrocells so that area in particular can be measured with the Hall sensor.
(I really like the color changing viewing film. It clears itself instantly when the magnet is removed, without leaving remnant smudges as often happens with the green stuff. The ones I have came laminated in fairly rigid plastic with a nice case to boot...)
PW
The fact that your hall sensor works, should tell you that two different fields, or field gradients exist on either side of the hall sensor.
If there was just one single field on both sides of the hall sensor, that were equal in magnitude (as claimed), it would not work, due to the electrons not being deviated from their straight path through the conductive junction material within the sensor. The hall sensor works using the Lorentz force, and with the same field either side of the hall sensor, there is no Lorentz force to curve the path of the electrons for the sensor to work. This is exactly the same as the homopolar generator, where if you have a north field either side of the rotating disk, then no current would flow through the disk, and around the circuit. You must have a north field on one side of the disk, and the south field on the other side of the disk, in order for current to flow through the disk when it is rotated.
Everything has an equal and opposite, and the magnetic field is no different. It must also have an equal and opposite charge.
Like charges repel, and unlike charges attract= the PM fields.
If the PM field was flowing out from the north and into the south as shown by the arrows in the field depiction, then that would explain as to why two north poles would repel, but not why the two south poles would. If this flow of (what ever it is) was flowing in at the south poles, then it would be like bringing two vacuum cleaner hoses close together--they would draw each other in.
What ever is flowing, or what ever is causing the magnetic force, must be two different/opposite fields of charge of some sort, in order for like poles to repel, and unlike poles to attract.
If it were the same field, then both ends of both magnets would repel each other, just like any other 2 charged bodies would, when charged with the same polarity.
Brad
I have been following this with some interest .
One of my recent uses of hall sensors was to make a tacho pickup on a 25hp 2 stroke motor.
There are a few different kinds of hall sensors that could create confusion .
Some act only on one pole and some act on both poles.
The first pickup I made was with a dual pole type and gave a plus and a minus pulse every time the magnet passed the hall device .
As soon as I replaced it with a monopole hall sensor I got the single pulse I needed.
This may, or may not be a source of confusion in this case , but the potential for misunderstanding of different hall sensor types is present.
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.12, 02:07:47
The fact that your hall sensor works, should tell you that two different fields, or field gradients exist on either side of the hall sensor.{\
I do not believe a gradient is required for a Hall effect probe to function. However, no change in field strength or polarity is detected as the probe is moved along the side of the magnet with its detection axis parallel to the magnetic axis. If there was an extra or opposite pole at each end with a null in the middle, surely this would create even greater gradients that can be detected. As previously stated, even moving the probe through an area that appears to be a null or bloch wall when observed with viewing film, no such null or any polarity reversal is detected with a Hall probe. A piece of viewing film and a gaussmeter (Hall probe) will allow you to confirm this for yourself.
Quote
If there was just one single field on both sides of the hall sensor, that were equal in magnitude (as claimed), it would not work, due to the electrons not being deviated from their straight path through the conductive junction material within the sensor. The hall sensor works using the Lorentz force, and with the same field either side of the hall sensor, there is no Lorentz force to curve the path of the electrons for the sensor to work. This is exactly the same as the homopolar generator, where if you have a north field either side of the rotating disk, then no current would flow through the disk, and around the circuit. You must have a north field on one side of the disk, and the south field on the other side of the disk, in order for current to flow through the disk when it is rotated.
I will give you comment above further thought, but I do not believe, as you state, that a magnetic gradient is required for electron deflection in the Hall probe. Keep in mind that a Hall probe has a bias current that flows through one axis of a planar conductor with the detection axis perpendicular to that current flow. The Lorentz force is between the magnetic field and the bias current.
As well, I suspect a homopolar generator/motor would also function with just one pole of a magnet facing the homopolar disc and the other pole directed away using a long magnetic armature, but that is another topic for discussion.
For now let's stick to whether the field around a PM is as you propose or as it is conventionally envisioned.
Quote
Everything has an equal and opposite, and the magnetic field is no different. It must also have an equal and opposite charge.
The equal but opposite regarding a PM are its vectors. With regard to a PM, I would not use the word "charge".
Quote
Like charges repel, and unlike charges attract= the PM fields.
Are you equating electrical charges to the poles of a PM? I would not.
Quote
If the PM field was flowing out from the north and into the south as shown by the arrows in the field depiction, then that would explain as to why two north poles would repel, but not why the two south poles would. If this flow of (what ever it is) was flowing in at the south poles, then it would be like bringing two vacuum cleaner hoses close together--they would draw each other in.
The arrows do not indicate "flow", They are merely vectors (although I have seen some seemingly use the vectors to indicate "flow", I would not). The bigger clue is which way are electrons deflected at opposing poles...
Quote
What ever is flowing, or what ever is causing the magnetic force, must be two different/opposite fields of charge of some sort, in order for like poles to repel, and unlike poles to attract.
If it were the same field, then both ends of both magnets would repel each other, just like any other 2 charged bodies would, when charged with the same polarity.
I myself would be inclined to not use words like "flow" or "flowing" when describing a PM.
The fields at the poles are indeed opposite but only in that the vectors point outward and inward at opposite ends of the magnet. Again, they are merely vectors, they do not indicate "flow" or motion. As in my first post, the Hall probe demonstrates which way electrons are deflected, and, as in that post, if one could see through the face of the magnet to the opposing face, we would see that the electrons are deflected in the same direction at each pole, when viewed from one end through the magnet to the opposite pole. Similar to my solid bar rotating on its long axis analogy, the ends of the bar rotate together in the same direction, yet when observed at one end or the other they appear to be rotating CW or CCW based upon which end is viewed. This is just an analogy, not to be taken literally...
In an earlier post you stated:
Quote
I believe that the PM is separating charges of an extremely dense energy field that is all around us, and of which we are yet to understand.
Except for the words "separating charges" this statement is very close to that which I also believe to be true.
However, I disagree with your idea of two separate and opposite poles at opposing ends of a magnet with some sort of null in the middle. I also believe the jury is still out with regard to whether the field rotates with the magnet. Personally, I believe it does (this has been a debate between scientists for many years).
While I will agree that scientists don't know everything, they do know quite a lot with regard to the geometry of magnetic fields. Look what they are able to accomplish with computer simulations and reductions to practice regarding Tokamaks and Stellerators, MRI machines or highly efficient PM motors. A new theory regarding what a magnetic field actually "is" will embrace and enhance our current understanding and explain why the fields are shaped and behave as they do. It won't prove all the scientists' observations wrong, it will explain them in a new light.
PW
Quoteauthor=picowatt link=topic=4661.msg112099#msg112099 date=1715487478
QuoteI do not believe a gradient is required for a Hall effect probe to function. However, no change in field strength or polarity is detected as the probe is moved along the side of the magnet with its detection axis parallel to the magnetic axis. If there was an extra or opposite pole at each end with a null in the middle, surely this would create even greater gradients that can be detected. As previously stated, even moving the probe through an area that appears to be a null or bloch wall when observed with viewing film, no such null or any polarity reversal is detected with a Hall probe.
Why would you detect a neutral point using a hall probe along the magnets length, when the field gradient remains the same value along the length of the magnet?
So doing my best to explain, we need to view the field as a cloud of !charged! particles, where one end of the magnet has a negative net charge, and the other a positive net charge. (i will get to the type of charge in one of your later responses). So looking at my first scribble below, where it is only 2 dimensional, (but should be viewed a 3 dimensional), we can see that when the hall probe is slid from one end to the other, the same field gradient value exists along the length of the magnet that the hall probe would encounter, resulting in your hall probe showing the same result all along the magnets length.
Now, the second diagram shows the same thing, but this time using a voltage dropped across a resistive carbon rod.
With the two DMM probes fixed, so as the same distance between the probes is maintained, such as the junction in the hall probe is, regardless of the fact that we both know that one end of the carbon rod has a net positive charge, and the other a net negative charge, the DMM will read the same voltage at any two fixed points along that resistive rod.
Now, if we use a ferromagnetic rod, like that used for the core of a coil, at the center of the magnet, the rod would see an even negative and positive value, which means a net value of 0.
If this coil core is move to the left, it would see a net positive value, and if moved to the right, it would see a net negative value, which is why we would get opposite sines from right to left of center, and a 0 value emf at the center position.
QuoteAs well, I suspect a homopolar generator/motor would also function with just one pole of a magnet facing the homopolar disc and the other pole directed away using a long magnetic armature, but that is another topic for discussion.
Yes it will work with just one magnet on one side of the disk, but the field gradient is still their through the disk.
By placing another magnet on the opposite side of the disk, with the two opposite fields facing the disk, far more current, and a higher voltage is produced, as the disk now sees a far greater field gradient.
QuoteFor now let's stick to whether the field around a PM is as you propose or as it is conventionally envisioned.
I would ask, who decided the field convention? and what instruments were used back then to conclude such a convention?
What is the magnetic force?. What is it made of?
The conventional magnetic field theory does not answer this fundamental question.
QuoteThe equal but opposite regarding a PM are its vectors. With regard to a PM, I would not use the word "charge".
The vectors and field lines are man made constructs, in the hope of describing what a magnetic field is.
In reality, the fields should be viewed like clouds of charge, where the charge density is greatest at each pole.
QuoteAre you equating electrical charges to the poles of a PM? I would not.
I am guessing you have not read the whole thread, where i explain as to what type of charges i believe they are, which is not the conventional electric charge as we know it.
I believe the PM is separating some other kind of charge that exists within an energy field that exists in all space.
Perhaps this dark energy they speak of, or vacuum energy, or the Aether.
QuoteThe arrows do not indicate "flow", They are merely vectors (although I have seen some seemingly use the vectors to indicate "flow", I would not). The bigger clue is which way are electrons deflected at opposing poles...
I would agree that there is no flow of anything, but only a separation of some kind of charge.
If nothing is flowing or moving, what is it that is deflecting the electrons?
In order for an electron to be deflected, energy is required. Where or what is this energy if nothing is flowing or moving?
We know that photons, although massless, can move an electron, as they (the photon) have energy due to motion.
So what moves or deflects electrons in a magnetic field?
QuoteI myself would be inclined to not use words like "flow" or "flowing" when describing a PM.
Neither would i, but many people do.
So once again, where does the magnetic field get it's energy from to deflect an electron, which has mass?
QuoteThe fields at the poles are indeed opposite but only in that the vectors point in opposite directions at each end.
If there is no flow or motion, what are these !vectors!?
What do the arrows (vectors) show?, if nothing is moving.
At the north, we have the arrows pointing out of the magnet body, and the south end, we have the arrows pointing into the magnet body.
If nothing is exiting or entering the magnet (no flow), then what exactly do these vector arrows show?
QuoteAgain, they are merely vectors, they do not indicate "flow" or motion.
So if the field is static, then how can there be a direction associated with the vectors?
How is it that although the same static field (nothing flowing) exists at each end of a magnet, we can say-well one end the field is pointing in, and the other it is pointing out.
QuoteAs in my first post, the Hall probe demonstrates which way electrons are deflected,
Where is the energy coming from to deflect the electrons?
Quoteif one could see through the face of the magnet to the opposing face, we would see that the electrons are deflected in the same direction at each pole,
Which would mean that one end would have a negative charge, and the other a positive charge.
QuoteHowever, I disagree with your idea of two separate and opposite poles at opposing ends of a magnet with some sort of null in the middle.
Everything i have shown, shows a neutral point at the center of the poles of a magnet, along with many others here.
My 2 field theory explains exactly why you see what you see with your hall sensor.
It explains as to why opposite poles attract, and like poles repel.
It explains why a piece of ferromagnetic material will not stick to the center portion of the magnet between the poles.
And it explains why passing the center point of a magnet pass the core of a coil will not induce an emf across that coil.
You claim that your hall sensor shows the same field along the length of the magnet, and so it should produce an emf across a coil when any portion of that magnet is passed across the core of the coil-but it does not.
QuoteI also believe the jury is still out with regard to whether the field rotates with the magnet. Personally, I believe it does
If that were the case, we could spin either the disk or the magnet in a homopolar generator, to generate a current flow through the disk.
But this is not the case. We can spin the magnet as fast as we like, but no emf would appear across the disk, and no current will flow through the disk, as no charge separation takes place.
This can only mean that the magnetic fields are pinned to the surrounding space of the magnet body, and is not part of the magnet body it self.
In order to generate current flow through the disk, there must be relative motion between the magnets fields, and the copper disk.
So, if the magnetic fields actually moved with the magnet body, then would could just spin the magnet to get that relative motion between the magnetic fields, and the disk.
This would mean we could pull electrical energy from the disk, without having to use brushes and the likes to collect that electrical energy.
We could solder one wire to the outer rim of the disk, and the other to the center of the disk, and just spin the magnet=a pure DC brushless generator and motor would be had.
But as i am sure you are well aware, this does not work.
QuoteWhile I will agree that scientists don't know everything, they do know quite a lot with regard to the geometry of magnetic fields. Look what they are able to accomplish with computer simulations and reductions to practice regarding Tokamaks and Stellerators, MRI machines or highly efficient PM motors. A new theory regarding what a magnetic field actually "is" will embrace and enhance our current understanding and explain why the fields are shaped and behave as they do. It won't prove all the scientists' observations wrong, it will explain them in a new light.
The 2 field theory changes nothing about the workings of any magnetic device.
But what it does do, is explain what the magnetic field is, what the magnetic force is, and why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract.
I mean, you really just have to stand back and look at all the effects we see with magnetic fields, where the two field theory explains them all.
Think about what happens when say a piece of neodymium is magnetized.
We zap it with a strong electromagnetic field- all the electrons (well most) are deflected in the same direction, and then all of a sudden, we have this invisible !force field! just appear out of no where.
I say force field, as this invisible field can apply a force to another such invisible field.
Where did this force field come from if nothing flows out of, or into the PM?
I stand by my claim.
That field already existed around that PM body before it was magnetized, in a neutral state, as it does in all space. It never just spewed out of the magnet once it was magnetized.
Once all those little generators (electrons) were all working together( material magnetized), then caused the separation of charges that already existed in a neutral field around the PM body.
There is nothing that the two field theory does not work for, and it explains what the magnetic field is, and how and why it can exert this invisible force.
Brad
Tinman
QuoteThe 2 field theory changes nothing about the workings of any magnetic device.
But what it does do, is explain what the magnetic field is, what the magnetic force is, and why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract.
I would agree your on the right track.
I noticed when speaking with many scientific minded people that they have a few blind spots. I can explain how there are over a billion trillion stars which have been radiating ungodly amounts of EM energy out into all space for billions of years but it doesn't register in there mind. They get this blank stare and glassy eyes ie. cognitive dissonance and won't acknowledge the fact that all space is full of energy. They talk like this EM energy just magically dissipated into nothing and space is empty however we know this cannot be true. I think this helps explain why so little progress has been made in understanding what the Primary Fields are.
My theories tend to align more with yours in that there could be no such thing as a "magnetic field". The supposed magnetic field is simply what happens when motional electric fields interact with external EM energy. As such the magnetic field is not something in itself more so an interaction with something else in the surrounding space. Which fits well with the fact that no fields rotate on axis. Fields do not rotate for the same reasons light radiated from a bulb does not rotate.
In effect, you could be correct and there are two different fields having two different polarization's. Now were talking about something similar to wave theory. Could like field repulsion and unlike field attraction relate to constructive and destructive interference?. So like field repulsion could be due constructive interference increasing the wave amplitude/field density. Like wise unlike field attraction could be due to destructive interference decreasing the wave amplitude field density due to cancellation/neutralization.
This seems like a much more rational or coherent explanation rather than a spooky action at a distance acting through nothing. As well, if all space is actually full of EM energy then we don't have to wonder where the energy for a FE device comes from, everything gets easier.
AC
Brad,
A gradient in the B field is not required for the Hall effect. A steady state and homogeneous B field in the Z axis, vector pointing upward, will cause electrons flowing in the Y axis to deflect to the left (right hand rule) in the X axis. Again, no "gradient" required...
The vectors indicated in a magnetic field representation basically only tells you which way electrons (or other charged particles) will be deflected when passing through a given point in the field (using right hand rule). That is all the vectors indicate.
Using a Hall sensor to study the field shape seems to be the least intrusive way to probe the conditions at any given point in the field.
PW
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.12, 12:44:33
...
So if the field is static, then how can there be a direction associated with the vectors?
How is it that although the same static field (nothing flowing) exists at each end of a magnet, we can say-well one end the field is pointing in, and the other it is pointing out.
I never said the field around a PM was "static", I said the vectors do not indicate "flow", as such...
Quote
You claim that your hall sensor shows the same field along the length of the magnet, and so it should produce an emf across a coil when any portion of that magnet is passed across the core of the coil-but it does not.
No it should not produce an EMF. As I previously stated, induction only occurs when the magnetic field is changing . Moving your center coil (in the three coil drawing) slightly to the left and right exposes the coil to similar, mostly unchanging, magnetic conditions in both positions, hence little induction occurs.
Quote
The 2 field theory changes nothing about the workings of any magnetic device.
But what it does do, is explain what the magnetic field is, what the magnetic force is, and why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract.
Actually I would think that it would change quite a bit. For one, it would change how charged particles react to a PM's magnetic field.
Quote
I stand by my claim. That field already existed around that PM body before it was magnetized, in a neutral state, as it does in all space.
On this we both agree...
PW
Brad,
Please explain the "FIELD GRADIENT.JPG" and the "CARBON ROD TEST.JPG" in your previous post. What is it you are depicting?
Thanks,
PW
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.12, 16:14:35
I never said the field around a PM was "static", I said the vectors do not indicate "flow", as such...
No it should not produce an EMF. As I previously stated, induction only occurs when the magnetic field is changing . Moving your center coil (in the three coil drawing) slightly to the left and right exposes the coil to similar, mostly unchanging, magnetic conditions in both positions, hence little induction occurs.
PW, I may be misunderstanding you here but in that drawing the idea isn't to move the coil to the left or right against the fixed PM, it is to move the coil say left, then move the PM in or out of the page. Then move the coil to the center and again move the PM in or out of the page, etc. This action produces the waveforms I show in my post #71 when the PM assembly is moved in the same direction for each test.
Quote
Actually I would think that it would change quite a bit. For one, it would change how charged particles react to a PM's magnetic field.
On this we both agree...
PW
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.12, 21:59:32
PW, I may be misunderstanding you here but in that drawing the idea isn't to move the coil to the left or right against the fixed PM, it is to move the coil say left, then move the PM in or out of the page. Then move the coil to the center and again move the PM in or out of the page, etc. This action produces the waveforms I show in my post #71 when the PM assembly is moved in the same direction for each test.
That's not the way I understood it. My understanding was motion was parallel to the magnetic axis and believe I mentioned that.
bi
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.12, 16:50:55
Brad,
Please explain the "FIELD GRADIENT.JPG" and the "CARBON ROD TEST.JPG" in your previous post. What is it you are depicting?
Thanks,
PW
Ok, the field gradient change JPG is the transition change from a positive to negatively charged field.
The fields around the PM start as very dense at the poles, and slowly decrease toward the other pole, where the center of the magnet is not void of the fields, but where the two fields are of equal density, thus creating a neutral field value.
The carbon rod JPG
In your comments about using the hall probe, you stated that you seen no field change along the length of the magnet, and that the field exists along the length of the magnet.
The carbon rod JPG also would show no voltage differential or change on the DMM, at any point you placed the two DMM probes, (which have a fixed distance between them) at any point along the carbon resistor rod, even though we know that the + end has a net positive charge, and the - end has a net negative charge, due to the charge gradient being the same along the length of the resistive rod.
Your hall sensor is working in much the same way, where although the ends of the magnet have a net field, the field gradients along the length of the magnet remain the same.
Brad
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.12, 22:18:27
That's not the way I understood it. My understanding was motion was parallel to the magnetic axis and believe I mentioned that.
bi
Then you mis-understood.
I clearly stated that the magnet is passed across the coil core, not slid along the coil core.
See reply 50.
Brad
Quoteauthor=picowatt link=topic=4661.msg112104#msg112104 date=1715530475
QuoteI never said the field around a PM was "static", I said the vectors do not indicate "flow", as such...
If it is not flowing or moving, is that not a static condition?
QuoteNo it should not produce an EMF. As I previously stated, induction only occurs when the magnetic field is changing.
The magnetic field is changing in relation to the coil core, when the magnet is waved across the coils core.
You stated that along the length of the magnet, your hall probe detected no change in the field along the length of the magnet.
So, if we wave the magnet passed the coil core, where we use all three positions as indicated in my 3 coil JPG, then all 3 coils should produce the same sine.
But we do not see that. We see opposite sines for both the left and right coils, and no sine(emf) at all across the center coil position.
Quoteinduction only occurs when the magnetic field is changing
No, there only needs to be relative motion between the fields and the inductor for induction to take place, not a changing field.
QuoteMoving your center coil (in the three coil drawing) slightly to the left and right exposes the coil to similar, mostly unchanging, magnetic conditions in both positions, hence little induction occurs.
As stated in the relevant post, the magnet is passed across the core of the coils, not slid from side to side.
QuoteActually I would think that it would change quite a bit. For one, it would change how charged particles react to a PM's magnetic field.
I don't see how.
The charged particles could either be pushed in one direction by one field, or pulled in the same direction by the other field.
Much the same as we can move any object. We can either push from one side, or pull from the other side, to get that object to move in the same direction.
QuoteOn this we both agree...
Ok, great. We both agree that the field already existed around the PM in a neutral state.
So once the PM body was magnetized, what took place within that existing field that was around the PM body, that was in a neutral state?
You would have to agree that some form of organization of that field took place?
What kind of organization could have taken place, where now 1 part of this organized field can now repel the same organized part of a similar field, and where that organized field can attract the opposite part of a similar organized field?
I believe that there are those-black opp type organizations, that have worked out how to manipulate this field of energy that exists in all space.
I believe they know how to draw energy from it, and how to cause an imbalance in it to provide propulsion.
The humble PM organizes this field, and can produce an invisible force, by arranging the electrons in a way that they all work together, and organize this field.
We also know that we can achieve the same field organization by getting those electrons to travel altogether in the same direction through a conductor, so both are related to getting the electrons to work together, and organize this field of what ever it is.
Brad
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.11, 21:19:14
PW,
OK, I found my linear hall sensor HAL400 which is sensitive to the flux passing through the center of the SOT-89A package. When used in this manner, I see no flux change at the center of the stacked PM I used when spaced .50" away from the outside of the PM!! This leaves me curious about the induction tests I ran. At this point in time, I have no answer!
Regards,
Pm
Hi PM
I wonder what would happen if you set up a simple reed switch circuit, where you would have a battery or power supply, an LED, and the reed switch, and moved that reed switch along the length of stacked magnet? Would the reed switch open, causing the LED to go out, when it got to the center of the stacked magnets?, which would indicate no net field at the center of the magnet stack-or single magnet if you have a long bar or rod magnet.
I would try it my self, but i am 1000Km from home, on vacation.
Do you have a reed switch to carry out such an experiment?
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.10, 08:55:11
I am pretty sure that any civil conversations would not be deleted.
So, looking at the diagram below that i just threw together, we can see what the result would be if the long rod/bar magnet was passed across the cores of each 3 coils in their relative position.
How exactly can this happen if the field is the same all around the magnet, and where the B field is the same passing all 3 cores of the coil?
The arrow of the B field depicts that the B field is the same along the length of the magnet, and will cut through each of the 3 cores in the same direction, and yet the left and right coils have opposite sines, and the center coil produces no emf at all.
Now, replace this single field theory with the one i believe to be correct, and what would the scope show? O0
Brad
The
net induced voltage in the centre coil is nil because the positive-induced and negative-induced voltages are simultaneous, equal in amplitude, but in opposite polarity, and therefore they cancel each other out.
The two outside coils however experience an imbalanced positive and negative induced voltage, and therefore the
net induced voltage in each case is non-zero, and opposite in polarity to each other.
- There is no null zone in the middle of a magnet.
- Maximum induced voltage is achieved by aligning the magnet axis and coil core axis end-to-end
- Minimum induced voltage is achieved by aligning the magnet and coil core axis as per your middle coil's configuration (perpendicular and in the middle)
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.13, 01:25:49
Then you mis-understood.
I clearly stated that the magnet is passed across the coil core, not slid along the coil core.
.
Brad
Hi Brad,
That's still not clear.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.10, 12:59:03
Faraday's Law. Notice cosθ. This term takes voltage to zero when motion is parallel to B.
Simple as that.
bi
It should have been clear that I was talking about motion parallel to the axis as is the
B vector at the middle of the magnet and shown by diagrams I posted numerous times.
Also, my reply#73:
QuoteHi Pm,
Remember
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.09, 20:51:29
I am talking about this:
https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=HRzgcA1K0LYBxUD9
These coils (with cores) are a different situation. You're looking at Faraday's Law instead of Lorentz.
But still, I contend at the middle of side of the magnet, the external field is strong and parallel to the magnetic axis. Motion of a conductor parallel to the B vector causes cosθ to equal zero so induced voltage is zero per Faraday's Law. Displacement from the midpoint, either way, introduces a perpendicular component to the B field and will increase cosθ so induced voltage appears in a conductor moving parallel to the axis.
You don't see generators using the sides of magnets.
In the experiment to which I've been using, the current carrying wire, once having moved and positioned midway along the side, comes to rest and continues to experience a strong force against the body of the magnet. This demonstrates a strong presence of magnetic field parallel to the axis.
bi
I was clear about my interpretation of the moving coil experiment.
BTW, I was experimenting this evening with the magnet, wire and coil which I showed previously. By using a stronger current the wire, or coil side could pick the magnet up 3-4 inches vertically off the table then suspend it against the middle of the magnet side. I think that demonstrates there is a strong magnetic field parallel to the axis along side of the magnet.
bi
edit: I see poynt99 posted while I was composing. I agree with his statements. Thanks.
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.13, 01:23:23
Ok, the field gradient change JPG is the transition change from a positive to negatively charged field.
The fields around the PM start as very dense at the poles, and slowly decrease toward the other pole, where the center of the magnet is not void of the fields, but where the two fields are of equal density, thus creating a neutral field value.
I must admit, your field gradient drawing and the explanation above leaves me more confused than ever as to what it is you envision going on in and around a PM. Are you still adhering to the ideas of orbital alignment and domains within the PM? You reference "+/- charges", are you referring to electrical charges?
If you were to draw vectors and field lines around the magnet in the gradient.jpg, what would they look like?
PW
Quoteauthor=poynt99 link=topic=4661.msg112113#msg112113 date=1715568631
QuoteThe net induced voltage in the centre coil is nil because the positive-induced and negative-induced voltages are simultaneous, equal in amplitude, but in opposite polarity, and therefore they cancel each other out.
The two outside coils however experience an imbalanced positive and negative induced voltage, and therefore the net induced voltage in each case is non-zero, and opposite in polarity to each other.
- There is no null zone in the middle of a magnet.
- Maximum induced voltage is achieved by aligning the magnet axis and coil core axis end-to-end
- Minimum induced voltage is achieved by aligning the magnet and coil core axis as per your middle coil's configuration (perpendicular and in the middle)
That is absolutely correct.
There is no null zone as others have said, but there is a neutral zone as i have stated, where the field gradient is both equal and opposite that induces the core at the center of the magnet, which results in no efm being produced across the coil.
Brad
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.13, 04:28:10
Are you still adhering to the ideas of orbital alignment and domains within the PM?
PW
QuoteYou reference "+/- charges", are you referring to electrical charges?
As stated a fw times now throughout this thread, no, i am not referring to electrical charges as we know them.
If they were electrical charges, we would know what the magnetic field is.
In the field that exists around the PM body, and all space, i believe there exists some other form of charges, which are mixed together, so as the field is in a neutral state.
But when in the presence of a PM that has been magnetized, these mixed charges are separated, and that separation of charges is what we see as the magnetic field it self.
QuoteI must admit, your field gradient drawing and the explanation above leaves me more confused than ever as to what it is you envision going on in and around a PM.
What changed within the PM material when we magnetized it, causes what changed in the field around the PM body.
The two are related, but they are not one in the same. There is no cloud of electrons in space, around the PM body, for it to be the same as that which took place within the PM body when it was magnetized.
Cause-the magnetic domains within the PM material were aligned. Effect- A charge separation took place in the local field around the PM body.
The thing that is hard for most to do, is get the notion that the electrical charge that we know of, is the only kind of charge, out of their head.
We did not know about electrical charge until we discovered it.
QuoteIf you were to draw vectors and field lines around the magnet in the gradient.jpg, what would they look like?
I will take some time later on tonight, and draw that up for you.
I will also redraw the 3 coil position test, and show you why it does not work using the single field theory, but only with the two field theory.
Brad
If I may chip in on this conversation, Brad's concept of clouds of mixtures of some undefined particles that each has either a + or a - fixed value (like our concept of point charges) occupying space to describe a magnetic field, that concept could be valid for describing the magnetic scalar potential. The scalar potential represents the field's capability of doing work, and maybe that is Brad's definition of what a field really is. It doesn't tell you in which direction the work would take place which is where vector direction comes into play. Take Brad's cloud of his "charges", if the mixture charge-density wrt to any distance through space is uniform there is nothing to define a direction. But if the mixture charge-density is not uniform then the gradient of the density along any line is a vector that has magnitude and direction and we could call that a magnetic field line. So Brad's concept is valid, but he needs to understand that it has two different expressions to be seen visually printed on paper. The standard field image that Brad says is wrong is one view (the mixture charge-density gradient at any point in space). The field image that Brad says is correct is the other view (the mixture charge-density value at any point in space). Both images are correct. Note that the manner in which iron filings arrange themselves to look like field lines for one of the images is fully explainable.
Smudge
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.13, 04:28:10
I must admit, your field gradient drawing and the explanation above leaves me more confused than ever as to what it is you envision going on in and around a PM. Are you still adhering to the ideas of orbital alignment and domains within the PM? You reference "+/- charges", are you referring to electrical charges?
If you were to draw vectors and field lines around the magnet in the gradient.jpg, what would they look like?
PW
Ok, i have drawn up a bit of diagram, and hope it is clear enough to understand.
The field gradient, using vector lines, along with varying size arrows to depict the gradient of each field.
So, we start from say the negative (south) side of the magnet, and as we get closer to the other side of the magnet(north side), the negative charge decreases in a linear fashion.
The same applies for the positive charge( north field) as it gets closer to the !south! end of the magnet.
This means at the center, between the two poles of the magnet, the net charge value is 0, and as we move from the center, in either direction toward the poles, the net charge value increases to either positive or negative, depending on which pole you are moving toward.
The same applies with my carbon resister example, where the center of the carbon resistor would have a net charge value of 0, and increase to either a negative or positive value as you move from the center, out toward the ends of the carbon resistor.
I have also added two more diagrams, along with a description on why the single field theory does not work, and why the two field theory does.
Bad
Quote from: Smudge on 2024.05.13, 10:20:38
If I may chip in on this conversation, Brad's concept of clouds of mixtures of some undefined particles that each has either a + or a - fixed value (like our concept of point charges) occupying space to describe a magnetic field, that concept could be valid for describing the magnetic scalar potential. The scalar potential represents the field's capability of doing work, and maybe that is Brad's definition of what a field really is. It doesn't tell you in which direction the work would take place which is where vector direction comes into play. Take Brad's cloud of his "charges", if the mixture charge-density wrt to any distance through space is uniform there is nothing to define a direction. But if the mixture charge-density is not uniform then the gradient of the density along any line is a vector that has magnitude and direction and we could call that a magnetic field line. So Brad's concept is valid, but he needs to understand that it has two different expressions to be seen visually printed on paper. The standard field image that Brad says is wrong is one view (the mixture charge-density gradient at any point in space). The field image that Brad says is correct is the other view (the mixture charge-density value at any point in space). Both images are correct. Note that the manner in which iron filings arrange themselves to look like field lines for one of the images is fully explainable.
Smudge
Hi Smudge.
I welcome your input--thank you.
Below are two diagrams, which explain as to which direction the work would take place--or the way i think it would anyway.
Brad
Tinman, Smudge,
Thank you for the explanations you offer.
Can you explain the application of Lorentz force equation with the current carrying wire attraction to the midpoint as demonstrated in experiment of which was the start of this discussion? Shown here:
https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=XfJo546MqBvutyVY
This phenomenon appears eloquently explained using the classic single field theory and FEMM field maps. I fail to see how Tinman's diagrams of lines and arrows could apply to this case.
If I understand Smudge, Tinman's theory may have some validity, but the classic theory which I used is not wrong, as Tinman insist.
Regards,
bi
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.13, 02:50:31
The net induced voltage in the centre coil is nil because the positive-induced and negative-induced voltages are simultaneous, equal in amplitude, but in opposite polarity, and therefore they cancel each other out.
The two outside coils however experience an imbalanced positive and negative induced voltage, and therefore the net induced voltage in each case is non-zero, and opposite in polarity to each other.
- There is no null zone in the middle of a magnet.
- Maximum induced voltage is achieved by aligning the magnet axis and coil core axis end-to-end
- Minimum induced voltage is achieved by aligning the magnet and coil core axis as per your middle coil's configuration (perpendicular and in the middle)
I would have to agree with Poynt that his explanation fits all the experiments I have performed on this scenario. I too have concluded that the outside coil positions when held in the same plane, are exposed to two opposite vector angles thus producing the opposite mmf's in the outside coils. Therefore, the center coil sees the nulled result from each of the N/S vectors.
I also see how the wire centering to the middle of the PM is caused by the Lorentz force from the symmetrical curved flux referenced to the vertical center of the PM. For me, mystery solved.
Also, the best view IMO of the activity around a PM would be taken from a flat crt screen. I mean our measurement media in this case would be electrons instead of iron filings or iron oxide in ferro-fluids, correct? If one looks for viewing using crt's, they appear to exhibit the conventional flux patterns commonly accepted. However, there also appears to be other anomalies which I don't understand.
Regards,
Pm
Quoteauthor=partzman link=topic=4661.msg112126#msg112126 date=1715605859
Regards,
Pm
[/quote]
QuoteI too have concluded that the outside coil positions when held in the same plane, are exposed to two opposite vector angles thus producing the opposite mmf's in the outside coils. Therefore, the center coil sees the nulled result from each of the N/S vectors.
So using the single field theory, and looking at the diagram below, you believe that we should see 0 EMF across all coils, due to the two outside coils now having the same field vector angles as the center coil has? This means that you would also believe that the ferromagnetic material of the coils core, will have no effect on those field vector angles as the magnet gets closer to the core of the coils?
I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that the field vectors would remain the same, when the field is being distorted toward the ferromagnetic material of the coil cores.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.13, 02:39:52
Hi PM
I wonder what would happen if you set up a simple reed switch circuit, where you would have a battery or power supply, an LED, and the reed switch, and moved that reed switch along the length of stacked magnet? Would the reed switch open, causing the LED to go out, when it got to the center of the stacked magnets?, which would indicate no net field at the center of the magnet stack-or single magnet if you have a long bar or rod magnet.
I would try it my self, but i am 1000Km from home, on vacation.
Do you have a reed switch to carry out such an experiment?
Brad
Brad,
Oops, I missed this post. I know I have reed switches somewhere but I can't seem to find them at the moment. Will keep looking!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.13, 13:32:52
Regards,
Pm
So using the single field theory, and looking at the diagram below, you believe that we should see 0 EMF across all coils, due to the two outside coils now having the same field vector angles as the center coil has?
If the coils in your diagram were parallel to each other rather than their axis being tangent to the field vectors, I would say no. The outside coils would have opposite EMF's. With your configuration, the EMF's would still be opposite but greater in value with the maximum EMF's measured with the coils centered at the pole ends as Poynt stated . In all cases, the center coil would have near zero EMF.
Quote
This means that you would also believe that the ferromagnetic material of the coils core, will have no effect on those field vector angles as the magnet gets closer to the core of the coils?
I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that the field vectors would remain the same, when the field is being distorted toward the ferromagnetic material of the coil cores.
No, I would have to agree that the cores should affect the vector angles simply because the cores provide a lower magnetic resistance than air but have never attempted to test for confirmation.
Quote
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.13, 11:32:12
Ok, i have drawn up a bit of diagram, and hope it is clear enough to understand.
The field gradient, using vector lines, along with varying size arrows to depict the gradient of each field.
So, we start from say the negative (south) side of the magnet, and as we get closer to the other side of the magnet(north side), the negative charge decreases in a linear fashion.
The same applies for the positive charge( north field) as it gets closer to the !south! end of the magnet.
In the FIELD GRADIENT 1.BMP, are you suggesting that the magnetic field reverses polarity on each side of the "null" in the middle as depicted by your red and blue arrows?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.13, 15:16:52
In the FIELD GRADIENT 1.BMP, are you suggesting that the magnetic field reverses polarity on each side of the "null" in the middle as depicted by your red and blue arrows?
PW
That is correct.
As discussed before, the magnetic field itself, is a result of some form of charge separation taking place around the PM body when the PM body is magnetized.
The magnetic field already existed in a neutral state around the PM body- and all space, before the PM material was magnetized. Once the PM was magnetized, a separation of some form took place in this existing field, which gave rise to what we call the magnetic field.
It is much the same as a capacitor, where when discharged, the volume of electrons on each plate is the same- in a neutral state.
But when we charge the capacitor, and separate the charges on the plates, we then get an electric field between the plates, due to 1 plate having a positive charge, and the other a negative charge.
These two plates will now be attracted to each other. Now, if two plates have the same charge, they would be repelled by each other.
Brad
The following link is to a video produced by UFOPolitics and I have a question regarding it. I'm especially curious as to what the opinions here are for the effect he shows starting at the 17:40 mark? The deflection of the electron beam is caused by what?
https://youtu.be/l7OzMURRU_k
Regards,
Pm
The neutral point concept isn't that difficult to understand and there are many simple experiments to prove it.
Find a bar magnet and move a small piece of iron along the side wall but not touching it. The metal is strongly attracted to each end pole but there is no force at the exact center and the iron appears demagnetized. This is because the force is pulling to each end pole equally resulting in zero force. I know this neutral point phenomena well because my magnetic attraction bearing is literally based on it. At the exact center of the field between the poles the forces and polarity neutralize each other.
Now break the magnet into two equal halves or use two smaller magnets. Now each half has it's own neutral point and a new one is produced between the two magnets. Now break each half in half so we have quarters. Each quarter magnet has it's own neutral point and there are now three new neutral points in between the four magnets.
I find it very strange that such a simple concept could have eluded so many people for so long. In fact it can be found in any grade school textbook under the section called "induced magnetism".
AC
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.13, 11:32:12
Ok, i have drawn up a bit of diagram, and hope it is clear enough to understand.
The field gradient, using vector lines, along with varying size arrows to depict the gradient of each field.
So, we start from say the negative (south) side of the magnet, and as we get closer to the other side of the magnet(north side), the negative charge decreases in a linear fashion.
The same applies for the positive charge( north field) as it gets closer to the !south! end of the magnet.
This means at the center, between the two poles of the magnet, the net charge value is 0, and as we move from the center, in either direction toward the poles, the net charge value increases to either positive or negative, depending on which pole you are moving toward.
The same applies with my carbon resister example, where the center of the carbon resistor would have a net charge value of 0, and increase to either a negative or positive value as you move from the center, out toward the ends of the carbon resistor.
I have also added two more diagrams, along with a description on why the single field theory does not work, and why the two field theory does.
Bad
Brad,
I misunderstood your "three coils and a magnet" drawing/experiment. I thought the magnet was being moved left and right. I now understand that you mean that the magnet is to be moved from behind the screen to in front of the screen.
If the field around the magnet was as simple as is drawn in your posted "three coil images", and the magnetic field is considered as having only one plane as drawn, no induction would occur in all three coils if the coils could be arranged such that the field vectors/lines intersect the coils perpendicular to the long axis of the coils. However, the depiction of the field in your drawings is too simplistic to reveal why the outer coils produce opposite polarities and why there is minimal induction in the center coil when the proposed three coil experiment is performed.
If you overlay your three coils in the field depicted by bistander (reply#30,Screenshot_20240414-155537-234.png"), you will see a more accurate representation of the field around a magnet and its interaction with the coils.
With the three coils positioned in that more accurate depiction, place vector arrows wherever a field line intersects the coils.
You will see that only in the center coil do the field lines pass thru the coil, for the most part, perpendicular to the coil's long axis, which produces minimal induction. Where the field lines strike the center coil at slightly non-perpendicular angles, the vectors and lines are opposite and symmetrical on either side of the coil, and therefore tend to cancel out.
Anywhere you position a coil oriented as in your image between the center of the magnet and its N pole, the vectors impinging upon the coil will be generally pointing toward the face of the coil at varying angles of incidence.
Anywhere you position a coil oriented as in your image between the center of the magnet and its S pole, the vectors impinging upon the coil will be generally pointing away from the face of the coil at varying angles of incidence.
With the vectors intersecting the face of the coils in opposite directions on either side of center, any induction produced by the two coils on opposite sides of center will have opposite polarities.
Keep in mind that the field is actually three dimensional so in a real world experiment, one must also consider that the field strength and the angles at which the vectors impinge on the coils will vary as the magnet approaches and then recedes from the coils.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.11, 22:53:45
(I really like the color changing viewing film. It clears itself instantly when the magnet is removed, without leaving remnant smudges as often happens with the green stuff. The ones I have came laminated in fairly rigid plastic with a nice case to boot...)
Thanks for the pointer. I ordered some MX-Film (https://magnametals.co.uk/products/magnetic-field-viewing-film-11-sizes-50mm-x-40mm-up-to-300mm-x-200mm-uk-stock) (manufactured by Nanobrick Co., Ltd in Korea) and it just arrived today. The difference in fidelity compared to the standard green magnetic viewing film is night & day.
picowatt
QuoteIf the field around the magnet was as simple as is drawn in your posted "three coil images", and the magnetic field is considered as having only one plane as drawn, no induction would occur in all three coils if the coils could be arranged such that the field vectors/lines intersect the coils perpendicular to the long axis of the coils. However, the depiction of the field in your drawings is to simplistic to reveal why the outer coils produce opposite polarities and why there is minimal induction in the center coil when the proposed three coil experiment is performed.
We could also use the basic laws of induced magnetism which I believe is taught around grade 7 in most schools. I drew the picture below to show how a bar magnet always induces a magnetic field of equal and opposite polarity in any nearby iron cores. As we can see we do not need any arrows, lines or loops to determine what is happening and why. We can also see how easy and intuitive the concept of induced magnetism is.
The bar magnet always induces an equal and opposite field polarity in any iron cores external to it and everything else can be deduced from this.
So of course, it becomes obvious why the center iron core in Tinman's model does not produce an electric current. It's because the induced field polarity in the center core is horizontal to the core. Where in order to produce electro-magnetic induction in the core coil it would have to be polarized vertical to the core.
Now that we understand how induced magnetism works we can move on to one of the many anomalies present.
As we can plainly see the center core is polarized equal and opposite to the bar magnet as expected. As such most would assume the core should be attracted to the bar magnet but in reality it is not. An iron core is attracted to every other area of the bar magnet but there is no attraction force at the exact center of the bar magnet. As a general rule any iron core having a width under 1/8 the width of the magnet is not attracted where cores over 1/4 the width have some attraction.
In every other case the iron core is polarized equal and opposite to the bar magnet causing an attractive force but not at the center or neutral plane. At the center the iron core can become demagnetized which should not be the case. Of course, you and many others would never know this because a person would have to do a real experiment to detect the anomaly.
You see, this is the reason why most FE inventors like Wesley Gary or Howard Johnson were able to do what they did. Everything was hands on doing countless hours of real experiments to determine what the real facts are.
AC
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.14, 14:45:23
The following link is to a video produced by UFOPolitics and I have a question regarding it. I'm especially curious as to what the opinions here are for the effect he shows starting at the 17:40 mark? The deflection of the electron beam is caused by what?
https://youtu.be/l7OzMURRU_k
Regards,
Pm
Hi Pm,
See attached diagram. It is a view from above. The green arrows represent moving charges from the electron gun, which, without the magnet, would sweep back and forth in the plane of the screen. The red arrows represent the magnetic field,
B vectors intersecting the charge. The charge's velocity vector is in the direction of the green arrows. So the cross product,
B×q
v=
F, Lorentz force vector. Applying the right hand rule will show the charge deflection direction, up left side of the CRT and down right side, as per video. Just an application of Lorentz force law.
bi
AC,
What is it with you and Brad drawing straight angular/diagonal lines through the body of a magnet to depict something about the magnet's magnetization? Surely this is not to be taken literally. Personally I find such drawings to be confusing and unlike anything I would imagine going on inside a magnet. It just doesn't seem "natural"...
Is this some recently accepted drawing convention related to a PM I have never seen before?
PW
picowatt
QuoteWhat is it with you and Brad drawing straight angular/diagonal lines through the body of a magnet to depict something about the magnet's magnetization? Surely this is not to be taken literally. Personally I find such drawings to be confusing and unlike anything I would imagine going on inside a magnet. It just doesn't seem "natural"...
Unlike some myself and Brad are not simply copying and pasting someone else's work. Were drawing the pictures ourselves to convey a thought or concept from our own perspective like any true artisan would. As a creative and open minded person I find it very confusing that you find the pictures confusing. So in my last post I had a choice to simply copy and paste or do it myself. I chose to draw it myself because I'm obviously not like you nor should I be.
Consider my picture below, I thought it was obvious I'm only looking at the most basic magnetic polarization through the material and little else. Like a binary view of the polarization focusing on what's important ie. the polarization. We should always focus on what is important and discard what is not.
QuoteIs this some recently accepted drawing convention related to a PM I have never seen before?
Ah, the argument for conformity. I developed my own forms of notation because I thought the present forms were primitive and ambiguous. It begs the question, why wouldn't we?. So if what were doing does not yield the results we want why wouldn't we try to change it?. I mean, if conformity leads to failure then I want no part of it my friend.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.14, 21:39:09
picowatt
Unlike some myself and Brad are not simply copying and pasting someone else's work.
...
I wasn't being flippant, my questions were sincere...
So, the short answer is, the drawings are not to be taken literally, and no, they are not some new drawing convention regarding the internal structure of a PM.
Thanks...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.14, 16:02:49
Brad,
I misunderstood your "three coils and a magnet" drawing/experiment. I thought the magnet was being moved left and right. I now understand that you mean that the magnet is to be moved from behind the screen to in front of the screen.
If the field around the magnet was as simple as is drawn in your posted "three coil images", and the magnetic field is considered as having only one plane as drawn, no induction would occur in all three coils if the coils could be arranged such that the field vectors/lines intersect the coils perpendicular to the long axis of the coils. However, the depiction of the field in your drawings is too simplistic to reveal why the outer coils produce opposite polarities and why there is minimal induction in the center coil when the proposed three coil experiment is performed.
If you overlay your three coils in the field depicted by bistander (reply#30,Screenshot_20240414-155537-234.png"), you will see a more accurate representation of the field around a magnet and its interaction with the coils.
With the three coils positioned in that more accurate depiction, place vector arrows wherever a field line intersects the coils.
You will see that only in the center coil do the field lines pass thru the coil, for the most part, perpendicular to the coil's long axis, which produces minimal induction. Where the field lines strike the center coil at slightly non-perpendicular angles, the vectors and lines are opposite and symmetrical on either side of the coil, and therefore tend to cancel out.
Anywhere you position a coil oriented as in your image between the center of the magnet and its N pole, the vectors impinging upon the coil will be generally pointing toward the face of the coil at varying angles of incidence.
Anywhere you position a coil oriented as in your image between the center of the magnet and its S pole, the vectors impinging upon the coil will be generally pointing away from the face of the coil at varying angles of incidence.
With the vectors intersecting the face of the coils in opposite directions on either side of center, any induction produced by the two coils on opposite sides of center will have opposite polarities.
Keep in mind that the field is actually three dimensional so in a real world experiment, one must also consider that the field strength and the angles at which the vectors impinge on the coils will vary as the magnet approaches and then recedes from the coils.
PW
The fields cutting the coils them self have very little to do with the EMF produced across the coil.
It is the fields interaction with the core of the coil that produces most of the EMF across the coil.
If you remove the core from the coil, the EMF across that coil will drop drastically.
I see no difference between the fields of my drawing, to that of which Bistander provided, other than the fact that his picture shows the field compression of a short magnet, while mine shows the field of that of a long magnet.
As stated before, the fields will be distorted by the ferromagnetic core material, which will tend to align the fields with the core material, so as to induce the ferromagnetic core.
There is simply no reason why this would not take place in any point in the field along the magnet, using the single field theory--but it does not.
Using the two field theory, we get exactly what we should get.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.15, 01:27:39
The fields cutting the coils them self have very little to do with the EMF produced across the coil.
It is the fields interaction with the core of the coil that produces most of the EMF across the coil.
If you remove the core from the coil, the EMF across that coil will drop drastically.
I performed your experiment with various coil types. Your experiment performs the same regardless of whether the coils are air core or ferrous cored.
Quote
I see no difference between the fields of my drawing, to that of which Bistander provided, other than the fact that his picture shows the field compression of a short magnet, while mine shows the field of that of a long magnet.
There is a tremendous difference. Note the field lines that extend outward from the sides of the magnet at almost right angles to the magnetization axis. These lines erupting from the sides of the core at sharp angles are particularly prevalent with stronger magnets (neo's, etc). Again, if you place your three cores in bistander's posted field, and draw vector arrows where the field lines contact the coils, you will see that the north side coils have vector arrows pointing at that coil's face, and the south side coils have the vector arrows pointing away from that coil's face.
This will be true regardless of whether the coils are air core or if they have a core that distorts the field.
Quote
As stated before, the fields will be distorted by the ferromagnetic core material, which will tend to align the fields with the core material, so as to induce the ferromagnetic core.
There is simply no reason why this would not take place in any point in the field along the magnet, using the single field theory--but it does not.
Again, if you redraw your three coils in the more realistic field bistander posted, regardless of whether there is a core or not, the preponderance of vectors on the north side of center will be pointing toward the coil face and the vectors on the south side of center will be pointing away from the coil face.
Quote
Using the two field theory, we get exactly what we should get.
Using the single field theory, we also get exactly what we should get...
PW
Hi Brad,
As I understand your theory, there is a neutral zone outside the middle of the magnet where no induction or force occurs due to the magnetic field. Yet when I move a conductor or coil side (conductors in series bundled tightly together) along there, in the direction of the green arrow, I measure an induced voltage. Also, a moving charge through the green arrow line moving perpendicular to the green arrow and perpendicular to the magnetic axis, experiences a Lorentz force along the line of the green arrow. These observed phenomena are consistent with Faraday's Law and Lorentz's Law, respectfully, and with conventional magnetic flux field theory.
bi
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.14, 18:44:05
AC,
What is it with you and Brad drawing straight angular/diagonal lines through the body of a magnet to depict something about the magnet's magnetization? Surely this is not to be taken literally. Personally I find such drawings to be confusing and unlike anything I would imagine going on inside a magnet. It just doesn't seem "natural"...
Is this some recently accepted drawing convention related to a PM I have never seen before?
PW
I don't recall drawing any such thing, regarding the internal workings of the PMs body.
All the diagrams i use, are of your conventional drawings taken from the internet.
I only add or change things on those drawings to show what i believe to be correct.
If we are to stick to !convention!, then the forum might as well be shut down.
This forum exists to find errors and mistakes in know science, so as we can find that !over unity! device-is it not?
We are not here to stick with convention. We are here to find the unknown.
Your convention cannot explain what the magnetic field is, or how it can produce these invisible forces, whereas the two-field theory explains it quite well.
Knowing and understanding what we can do with the magnetic field, in no way shows or tells us what it actually is--unless you know what it is?
Everything we have that provides some form of energy, is a flow from a high energy state, to a low energy state.
Would you agree that it takes energy to align the magnetic domains within a ferromagnetic material?
If so, when we bring the fields of a PM close to say a piece of steel, where did the energy come from to align those magnetic domains within that piece of steel?
I will tell you where it came from--it came from the energy field that surrounds the PM.
The negative field at one end of the PM will cause electron spin alignment in one direction within the piece of steel, and the positive field at the other end of the PM, will cause electron spin alignment in the opposite direction in the piece of steel. There is your Lorentz force being applied to the electrons within the steel.
One thing i would like to ask you PW.
You stated in another post that you do not believe that the magnetic field is fixed in space, but rotates with the PM.
We can provide examples that shows the magnetic field is fixed in space, like the homopolar generator and motor.
Can you provide examples that show the field to be rotating with the PM ?
I only ask, as i am not aware of any such examples, but if they exist, i would like to see them, as this would add to us understanding what the magnetic field is.
Brad
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.15, 02:16:14
Hi Brad,
As I understand your theory, there is a neutral zone outside the middle of the magnet where no induction or force occurs due to the magnetic field. Yet when I move a conductor or coil side (conductors in series bundled tightly together) along there, in the direction of the green arrow, I measure an induced voltage. Also, a moving charge through the green arrow line moving perpendicular to the green arrow and perpendicular to the magnetic axis, experiences a Lorentz force along the line of the green arrow. These observed phenomena are consistent with Faraday's Law and Lorentz's Law, respectfully, and with conventional magnetic flux field theory.
bi
I am not sure what you mean by ( Yet when I move a conductor or coil side along there, in the direction of the green arrow)?
If you have a coil/inductor laying on it's side, where one end of the core is toward the north end of the magnet, and the other end is toward the south end of the magnet, then of course you will get an induced voltage. If the coil core is at right angles to the length of the magnet, then no induced voltage will be seen across the coil when the core is passed across the center position of the magnet.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.15, 02:19:27
I don't recall drawing any such thing, regarding the internal workings of the PMs body.
All the diagrams i use, are of your conventional drawings taken from the internet.
I only add or change things on those drawings to show what i believe to be correct.
I was referring to your "FIELD GRADIENT.JPG" in reply #85. I had to ask you about it because I did not know what it was supposed to represent.
Quote
If we are to stick to !convention!, then the forum might as well be shut down.
This forum exists to find errors and mistakes in know science, so as we can find that !over unity! device-is it not?
We are not here to stick with convention. We are here to find the unknown.
Well, that is why I asked about what appeared to be something new, so it could be understood by all (the typical reason we have conventions, units, etc.)
Quote
Your convention cannot explain what the magnetic field is, or how it can produce these invisible forces, whereas the two-field theory explains it quite well.
Knowing and understanding what we can do with the magnetic field, in no way shows or tells us what it actually is--unless you know what it is?
Everything we have that provides some form of energy, is a flow from a high energy state, to a low energy state.
You do not know what "my convention" explains. However, it does not require a two field theory.
Quote
Would you agree that it takes energy to align the magnetic domains within a ferromagnetic material?
Yes, I would agree...
Quote
If so, when we bring the fields of a PM close to say a piece of steel, where did the energy come from to align those magnetic domains within that piece of steel?
I will tell you where it came from--it came from the energy field that surrounds the PM.
The negative field at one end of the PM will cause electron spin alignment in one direction within the piece of steel, and the positive field at the other end of the PM, will cause electron spin alignment in the opposite direction in the piece of steel. There is your Lorentz force being applied to the electrons within the steel.
One thing i would like to ask you PW.
You stated in another post that you do not believe that the magnetic field is fixed in space, but rotates with the PM.
We can provide examples that shows the magnetic field is fixed in space, like the homopolar generator and motor.
Can you provide examples that show the field to be rotating with the PM ?
I only ask, as i am not aware of any such examples, but if they exist, i would like to see them, as this would add to us understanding what the magnetic field is.
I have answers, or at least some theories, for most of the questions presented above, however, as I stated earlier, for now I would like to focus on whether there is a single field as it has been understood to be for some time, or whether there is two separate fields with a null in the middle as you propose.
With the explanation I provided in my previous posts, I do not see the three coil experiment as being proof of two fields.
Have you performed any other experiments that provide further support of your two field theory?
PW
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.15, 02:38:01
I am not sure what you mean by ( Yet when I move a conductor or coil side along there, in the direction of the green arrow)?
If you have a coil/inductor laying on it's side, where one end of the core is toward the north end of the magnet, and the other end is toward the south end of the magnet, then of course you will get an induced voltage. If the coil core is at right angles to the length of the magnet, then no induced voltage will be seen across the coil when the core is passed across the center position of the magnet.
Brad
Hi Brad,
Refer to my reply #32 for photos of my test setup.
The diagram, of yours, which I marked with the green arrow is orientated differently. The green arrow represents the direction of the movement of the conductor (or coil side) or the direction of force on the conductor (or coil side). The conductor (or coil side) is perpendicular to the green arrow and perpendicular to the magnetic axis, consistent with the right hand rule, in quadrature.
I did not use a core as that would corrupt the field. Concerning the coil side, the opposite side was 4 to 5 inches away, such that it was not factor with induction.
Hope that clears it up.
bi
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.15, 02:43:38
I was referring to your "FIELD GRADIENT.JPG" in reply #85. I had to ask you about it because I did not know what it was supposed to represent.
Well, that is why I asked about what appeared to be something new, so it could be understood by all (the typical reason we have conventions, units, etc.)
You do not know what "my convention" explains. However, it does not require a two field theory.
Yes, I would agree...
Have you performed any other experiments that provide further support of your two field theory?
PW
QuoteWith the explanation I provided in my previous posts, I do not see the three coil experiment as being proof of two fields.
It also does not disprove it, and fits perfectly with the outcomes.
QuoteI have answers, or at least some theories, for most of the questions presented above, however, as I stated earlier, for now I would like to focus on whether there is a single field as it has been understood to be for some time, or whether there is two separate fields with a null in the middle as you propose.
Here in lies the problem with being indoctrinate with current theory, where even when presented with a sound alternate theory, it is simply ignored because it is not conventional.
Everything that works with the single field theory, works with the two field theory, but the two field theory explains as to what the magnetic field actually is, where as the single field theory has no explanation as to what the field actually is.
The thing is, the two field theory cannot be disproven, using conventional single field theory, as the two offer the very same results.
Science is not about finding ways to confirm conventional theories, it's about finding other theories that give the same result, but offer some more explanation on that which is yet to be explained, such as--what is the magnetic field? The single field theory sees an electron being forced in one direction at one end of the magnet, and the other direction at the other end of the magnet.
A negative charge also sees an electron forced in one direction, while a positive charge sees it forced in the other direction.
We have agreed on one thing, and that is--the field already existed in a neutral state around the PM body before it was magnetized.
We also agree that some form of organization took place within that field, once the PM body is magnetized.
But for the single field theory, this is where it ends, where no explanation can be given to what that field is.
With the two field theory, we can see that some form of charge separation has taken place within the field around the PM.
This charge separation now explains why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract--conventional electrical theory, only with this field-the field around the PM, we are looking at some other kind of charge that is not like the electrical charge we know of today.
Sometimes i get somewhat disappointed by some here, who refuse to open their mind to alternatives, but blindly follow conventional theory, even when the alternative shows the exact same outcome to the conventional, but also offers more. Remove those man made field lines, arrows, and pole denotations, and what do you have? You have the two field PM.
That field around the PM, is an endless source of energy.
All we need to do is find out how to draw that energy from the field.
Something to think about--
You have agreed that it takes energy to align the magnetic domains within a ferromagnetic material.
So lets say we have a simple rotor that has two magnets in it, where one has the south pole pointing out, and the other has the north pole pointing out.
This rotor is attached to a motor, and we have a steel core that the magnets pass. when each magnet passes this core, the magnetic domains are aligned within the core, and this alignment changes every time one of the magnets pass the core, due to their orientation. And lets say that the motor is rotating the disk at 2000RPM, which would mean the magnetic domains within the core changes (for simplicity) 180* 4000 times a minute. We run the motor for say 24 hours, and so the magnetic domains of that core have change direction 5,760,000 times. We find the PMs field remains the same, so where did the energy come from to change the magnetic domains within that core material?--It came from the field that surrounds the PM, not the PM it self. We have such PM generators that run for 10's of years. Can you imagine how many times the PMs fields have flipped those cores magnetic domains.
So i say, instead of trying to use the conventional single field theory to disprove the two field theory, try and show where or why the two field theory does not work the same as the single field theory.
Brad
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.15, 03:38:23
Hi Brad,
Refer to my reply #32 for photos of my test setup.
The diagram, of yours, which I marked with the green arrow is orientated differently. The green arrow represents the direction of the movement of the conductor (or coil side) or the direction of force on the conductor (or coil side).
Concerning the coil side, the opposite side was 4 to 5 inches away, such that it was not factor with induction.
Hope that clears it up.
bi
That does not represent my experiment.
QuoteI did not use a core as that would corrupt the field.
I see.
So you agree that the ferromagnetic cores would change the field vectors.
Interesting.
QuoteThe conductor (or coil side) is perpendicular to the green arrow and perpendicular to the magnetic axis, consistent with the right hand rule, in quadrature.
And would give consistent results as would be had by the two field theory.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.15, 04:20:28
It also does not disprove it, and fits perfectly with the outcomes.
As does the single field theory...
Quote
Here in lies the problem with being indoctrinate with current theory, where even when presented with a sound alternate theory, it is simply ignored because it is not conventional.
Everything that works with the single field theory, works with the two field theory, but the two field theory explains as to what the magnetic field actually is, where as the single field theory has no explanation as to what the field actually is.
The thing is, the two field theory cannot be disproven, using conventional single field theory, as the two offer the very same results.
Science is not about finding ways to confirm conventional theories, it's about finding other theories that give the same result, but offer some more explanation on that which is yet to be explained, such as--what is the magnetic field?
I agree, but alternate explanations can be had, or theorized, that do not negate hundreds of years of observation and measurement.
Quote
The single field theory sees an electron being forced in one direction at one end of the magnet, and the other direction at the other end of the magnet.
A negative charge also sees an electron forced in one direction, while a positive charge sees it forced in the other direction.
We have agreed on one thing, and that is--the field already existed in a neutral state around the PM body before it was magnetized.
We also agree that some form of organization took place within that field, once the PM body is magnetized.
But for the single field theory, this is where it ends, where no explanation can be given to what that field is.
With the two field theory, we can see that some form of charge separation has taken place within the field around the PM.
Your two field theory does not explain what a magnetic field "is", anymore than the single field theory does. It just redefines its properties in ways that are not supported by measurements.
Quote
This charge separation now explains why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract--conventional electrical theory, only with this field-the field around the PM, we are looking at some other kind of charge that is not like the electrical charge we know of today.
So now we need additional unknown "charges" of some unknown nature to make the two field theory work. Does your two field theory actually tell us what a magnetic field actually "is", no, you are just assigning additional characterizations with a new theory. Can your separate "charges" exist as monopoles? Why do these opposite charges repel? What is the force that causes that?
Quote
Sometimes i get somewhat disappointed by some here, who refuse to open their mind to alternatives, but blindly follow conventional theory, even when the alternative shows the exact same outcome to the conventional, but also offers more. Remove those man made field lines, arrows, and pole denotations, and what do you have? You have the two field PM.
I consider myself quite open minded, and have followed along on this thread with great interest to see where it would go. I do not "blindly follow conventional theory". There is no reason for you to go there...
How does removing "field lines, arrows, and pole denotations" in any way support your two field theory? Shall we also discard the right hand rule and everything else science has been able to measure, characterize, and simulate with regard to the character and interactions of a magnetic field?
Quote
That field around the PM, is an endless source of energy.
All we need to do is find out how to draw that energy from the field.
Something to think about--
You have agreed that it takes energy to align the magnetic domains within a ferromagnetic material.
So lets say we have a simple rotor that has two magnets in it, where one has the south pole pointing out, and the other has the north pole pointing out.
This rotor is attached to a motor, and we have a steel core that the magnets pass. when each magnet passes this core, the magnetic domains are aligned within the core, and this alignment changes every time one of the magnets pass the core, due to their orientation. And lets say that the motor is rotating the disk at 2000RPM, which would mean the magnetic domains within the core changes (for simplicity) 180* 4000 times a minute. We run the motor for say 24 hours, and so the magnetic domains of that core have change direction 5,760,000 times. We find the PMs field remains the same, so where did the energy come from to change the magnetic domains within that core material?--It came from the field that surrounds the PM, not the PM it self. We have such PM generators that run for 10's of years. Can you imagine how many times the PMs fields have flipped those cores magnetic domains.
I fail to see what any of the above has to do with proving your two field theory.
Quote
So i say, instead of trying to use the conventional single field theory to disprove the two field theory, try and show where or why the two field theory does not work the same as the single field theory.
Does this mean that the three coil experiment was your only proof of the two field theory? If you have some other experiment that support's your theory, I am anxious to hear what it is.
Somewhat unrelated to the single pole/two pole question of a PM, scientists have studied the Earth's magnetosphere in some detail. Charged particles can become trapped by and travel between the poles following what at least appears to be magnetic field lines. The spiral path those particles follow along a "line" obey the vectors of the single field theory. additionally, the plasmasphere contains charged particles trapped by the Earth's magnetic field that co-rotate with Earth's magnetic field.
Just food for thought...
PW
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.15, 04:29:45
That does not represent my experiment.
<snip>
Yes Brad, I know. What I did was verify the experiment we were discussing prior to you joining the discussion and telling us our model is wrong. You went on to explain things and I paraphrased.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.15, 02:16:14
Hi Brad,
As I understand your theory, there is a neutral zone outside the middle of the magnet where no induction or force occurs due to the magnetic field.
I can't seem to get you to address obvious demonstrations that contradict your neutral zone. There is demonstrable force and induction where you claim none can be.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.15, 05:13:13
Yes Brad, I know. What I did was verify the experiment we were discussing prior to you joining the discussion and telling us our model is wrong. You went on to explain things and I paraphrased.
I can't seem to get you to address obvious demonstrations that contradict your neutral zone. There is demonstrable force and induction where you claim none can be.
bi
There is no induction that occurs at the center point of a PM when tested as i stated.
When running the coil as in your experiment, from one end of the magnet, to the other end, the EMF value across the coil at the center point is 0, which means no induction is taking place at the center point.
Nor will any ferromagnetic material stick to the center of the PMs body, but will stick to any point either side of the center, regardless of which way the field vectors are going.
Also noted by yourself in your last reply, you agree that a ferromagnetic core would distort these field vectors anyway--as i stated many times before.
You also say there is no neutral zone at the center, but instead say this point along the magnets length has a detent?
A detent is a mechanical or magnetic means to resist or arrest the movement of a mechanical device.
Can you please show what this detent looks like in the center of the magnetic field, between the two poles, if there is no change to the field along the length of the field.
Can you also give an example as to where or how the two field theory does not work, and how the single field theory explains what the magnetic field actually is?
Thanks
Brad
Ok, below is a diagram of two charged capacitor plates.
As can be seen, the fields look exactly the same as that of a PM.
Also can be seen is the neutral point at the center of the field, where both the positive and negative charges are of equal value, thus creating a neutral zone, where there is not net charge value (yellow area), but where both fields still exist.
So i ask, why is it not possible for this field around a PM, not to be a separation of some form of charge, like that of the two capacitor plates?
And would this not also explain clearly what the magnetic field is, and why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract, exactly as they would with the capacitor plates.
Brad
Excuse me for butting in, gentlemen.
Bi, several times you have referred to your experiment here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4661.msg112029#msg112029 but I think that experiment may be flawed. The bloch wall, or whatever nomenclature you choose to use for it, is an almost microscopically thin section of the magnetic field. Correct? A single strand of your copper wire is probably thicker. A multi layer coil passed over the area will be largely influenced by both poles as it passes by the bloch wall, never reading only the bloch wall by itself.
Just as a thought, maybe repeating your experiment using a very long bar magnet and a single strand of very fine wire exactly perpendicular to the magnet would show more meaningful results?
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.15, 05:35:31
When running the coil as in your experiment, from one end of the magnet, to the other end, the EMF value across the coil at the center point is 0, which means no induction is taking place at the center point.
<snip>
Thanks
Brad
Brad,
I've said the coil side is perpendicular to the axis of the magnet.
At the middle of magnet on the outside, the magnetic field is strong and parallel to the axis.
I'll try to devise a way to suspend the magnet and hang a current carrying conductor from its middle a snap a pic. That will prove the existence of the detent. I don't have a way to move the coil side per the green arrow and document the induced voltage but can see it plainly on the voltmeter shown in the photo, where the magnetic axis is vertical.
Regards,
bi
Quote from: Cadman on 2024.05.15, 13:49:50
Excuse me for butting in, gentlemen.
Bi, several times you have referred to your experiment here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4661.msg112029#msg112029 but I think that experiment may be flawed. The bloch wall, or whatever nomenclature you choose to use for it, is an almost microscopically thin section of the magnetic field. Correct? A single strand of your copper wire is probably thicker. A multi layer coil passed over the area will be largely influenced by both poles as it passes by the bloch wall, never reading only the bloch wall by itself.
Just as a thought, maybe repeating your experiment using a very long bar magnet and a single strand of very fine wire exactly perpendicular to the magnet would show more meaningful results?
Hi Cadman,
There is no Bloch Wall (or whatever) so I won't answer your first question.
But I am addressing the area outside of the magnet at or near the middle.
I feel the #24 wire is thin enough.
Thanks for your input.
bi
In order to view whatever fields exist around a PM, it is my opinion that there is no better media to measure with than an electron. With an older non-digital scope that uses a CRT, the electron beam that produces the centered horizontal beam with no vertical input would seem to be ideal. Below are pix of what I am proposing.
The stacked neo's are held against the screen by a mostly composite clamp that does contain some ferrous material so I'm sure this is affecting the traces somewhat, but the basic influence is what is important. The polarity of the PM assembly is kept the same horizontally from the vertical position below the center line to above the center line.
IMO, the trace deflections can be explained by Lorentz forces and there is no indication of any flux line/field break or neutral point anywhere along the sides of the PM assembly.
I will also attempt a similar experiment with two charged parallel capacitor plates to see what influence exists for comparison.
Comments?
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2024.05.15, 14:27:24
In order to view whatever fields exist around a PM, it is my opinion that there is no better media to measure with than an electron. With an older non-digital scope that uses a CRT, the electron beam that produces the centered horizontal beam with no vertical input would seem to be ideal. Below are pix of what I am proposing.
The stacked neo's are held against the screen by a mostly composite clamp that does contain some ferrous material so I'm sure this is affecting the traces somewhat, but the basic influence is what is important. The polarity of the PM assembly is kept the same horizontally from the vertical position below the center line to above the center line.
IMO, the trace deflections can be explained by Lorentz forces and there is no indication of any flux line/field break or neutral point anywhere along the sides of the PM assembly.
I will also attempt a similar experiment with two charged parallel capacitor plates to see what influence exists for comparison.
Comments?
Regards,
Pm
Hi Pm
It seems to me that the steel rod in your clamp is distorting the field.
In one pic, the beam is being pushed away from the center of the magnet stack, and in the other pic, it is being drawn toward the center of the magnet stack.
In both cases, it seems the beam is being deflected away by the steel rod in your clamp.
Added--could you not just stand the scope up vertically, and sit the magnets on the screen, and do away with the clamp?
Brad
It seems to me some are confusing the concept of a neutral plane or axis with other concepts.
Here is what we know, the geometric neutral axis (GNA) and Magnetic neutral axis (MNA) shown below are recognized scientific terms relating to armature reaction. It doesn't matter if some don't like the concept or accept the science. It's a proven concept and it is what it is. As well, my diagram of the induced magnetic polarity in iron cores agrees perfectly with the GNA and MNA concepts. In fact, I modified the MNA picture so it looks more like my own. This isn't rocket science and all were doing is showing how the magnetic polarization changes in a material.
So when people removed the armature or iron core material from between the poles then there is really nothing left to polarize. It's no wonder there not getting the results they want because they changed the experiment.
AC
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.15, 13:55:07
Brad,
I've said the coil side is perpendicular to the axis of the magnet.
At the middle of magnet on the outside, the magnetic field is strong and parallel to the axis.
I'll try to devise a way to suspend the magnet and hang a current carrying conductor from its middle a snap a pic. That will prove the existence of the detent.
I suspended the magnet using a plastic clamp and vinyl tape from the shop light above the bench. The red mark is at the N end. You can see the coil hanging held in place by the vertical Lorentz force. The coil side is mid way and perpendicular to the magnetic axis.
bi
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.16, 01:08:53
It seems to me some are confusing the concept of a neutral plane or axis with other concepts.
<snip>
So when people removed the armature or iron core material from between the poles then there is really nothing left to polarize. It's no wonder there not getting the results they want because they changed the experiment.
AC
Hello AC,
This is the experiment which I explained to Pm when Tinman joined and stated that explanation was wrong due to a neutral zone where no force exists.
https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=2g99IYutjPxdCyBY
Where is the iron core or where would it be? The wire is the armature and the magnet provides the field. It is a basic motor, converting electric energy to mechanic energy, in its simplest form.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.16, 01:48:50
Hello AC,
This is the experiment which I explained to Pm when Tinman joined and stated that explanation was wrong due to a neutral zone where no force exists.
https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=2g99IYutjPxdCyBY
Where is the iron core or where would it be? The wire is the armature and the magnet provides the field. It is a basic motor, converting electric energy to mechanic energy, in its simplest form.
bi
So, we have the pictured below situation--a figure 8 :-X
It is not a motor at all, as even if the wire could pass through the magnet, it will stop at the neutral zone, which is the surface of the magnet at the center of the magnet.
Motors are designed so as like poles repel, and unlike poles attract. A motor is never designed to use the center between the two fields of a magnet, as that portion of the field is neutral, where neither a south or north field would be attracted to it, due to it applying equal and opposite forces = neutral.
And on your coil/ neutral experiment, there is no way you can replicate my coil/core in the center of the magnet example, as your coil is far bigger than the magnet, and your magnet oriented wrong to the coil.
To Quote Poynt (The net induced voltage in the center coil is nil because the positive-induced and negative-induced voltages are simultaneous, equal in amplitude, but in opposite polarity, and therefore they cancel each other out.)
Now, is that not a neutral zone? Equil in amplitude, but opposite in !polarity! = A net value of 0.
I have never said the fields are not there, they are just neutral- a point in the fields that can do no work, such as induction.
The north and south fields can attract and align the magnetic domains withing a ferromagnetic material, but the center of the fields cannot, because the two fields are applying equal and opposite forces on the magnetic domains/electrons within the ferromagnetic material.
Brad
Using Google.
How does an electric motor work in physics?
An electric motor works based on the interaction between magnetic fields and electric currents. When an electric current flows through a wire in the presence of a magnetic field, a force is exerted on the wire, causing it to move. In a simple electric motor, this principle is used to create rotational motion. The electric current is supplied to a loop of wire (the rotor) which is surrounded by a magnetic field. The interaction between the current and the magnetic field causes the rotor to spin, which can then be used to drive machinery or other mechanical systems. This is a basic explanation of how an electric motor works in physics.
from Quora.com
___________
Electric motor, any of a class of devices that convert electrical energy to mechanical energy, usually by employing electromagnetic phenomena.
https://www.britannica.com/technology/electric-motor
_______
Electric motors work due to a phenomenon called the motor effect.
from: https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/physics/electricity/electric-motor/
Web search for motor effect:
The motor effect is a fundamental concept in physics that describes the interaction between an electric current and a magnetic field, leading to the generation of a force.
_______
A simple generator and a simple electric motor have very similar designs ... - Vaia
A simple generator converts mechanical energy into electrical energy, whereas a simple electric motor converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.
from: https://www.vaia.com/en-us/textbooks/physics/the-physics-of-everyday-phenomena-a-conceptual-introduction-to-physics-6-edition/chapter-14/problem-29-a-simple-generator-and-a-simple-electric-motor-ha/
_______
Scientifically speaking, the electric motor is a unit used to convert electric power into motive energy or electrical energy into mechanical energy.
from:
https://www.nidec.com/en/technology/motor/basic/00001/
_______
This could go on all day. I will not argue about the definition of electric motor. Others are welcome to.
bi
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.16, 11:02:28
<snip>
And on your coil/ neutral experiment, there is no way you can replicate my coil/core in the center of the magnet example, as your coil is far bigger than the magnet, and your magnet oriented wrong to the coil.
<snip>
Brad
Brad,
I'm not trying to replicate your experiment. I object to you saying that my explanation to Pm in my reply #30 is wrong because there is no magnetic field at the midpoint along the side of the magnet. I believe I have demonstrated that there is.
bi
It seems to me that part of the debate here is a result of differing perspectives. Some are using the magnet as a reference, and others are using the coupled device (i.e. coil) as their reference. I think it is important to keep this in mind and clearly distinguish between the two. We should be able to agree on the following 2 points:
- From the perspective of the magnet itself and its inherent field, there exists no internal or external null or neutral zone along its length. The field is continuous and unbroken from end-to-end. The external field can be diverted but not broken.
- From the perspective of the coupled device (coil or wire), there exists a degree of net induced voltage that is dependent upon its orientation and relative position along the length of the magnet during the induction (changing field) process.
So how we choose to couple the magnet and coupling device together has a significant impact on the net induced voltage in the coupled device. The "how" includes:
1) the relative axis orientation and position along the magnet
2) the distance between the two
3) the strength of the B field in the magnet
4) the number of turns and core type of the coil
5) the velocity at which the relative motion occurs
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.15, 23:15:39
Hi Pm
It seems to me that the steel rod in your clamp is distorting the field.
In one pic, the beam is being pushed away from the center of the magnet stack, and in the other pic, it is being drawn toward the center of the magnet stack.
In both cases, it seems the beam is being deflected away by the steel rod in your clamp.
Added--could you not just stand the scope up vertically, and sit the magnets on the screen, and do away with the clamp?
Brad
Hi Brad,
OK, I took your suggestion to position the scope vertically and here are the results. There is a slight amount of ferrous material around the scope bezel so I had to use a small amount of sticky material to keep the PM from migrating toward the edges. I didn't quite get the top and bottom PM positions identical to the center line so I hope that is OK!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.16, 13:24:46
- From the perspective of the magnet itself and its inherent field, there exists no internal or external null or neutral zone along its length. The field is continuous and unbroken from end-to-end. The external field can be diverted but not broken.
This is exactly my point.
Thank you.
bi
Poynt99
QuoteFrom the perspective of the magnet itself and its inherent field, there exists no internal or external null or neutral zone along its length.
The internal bloch wall is defined as a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next. In effect, the boundary between the domains must become neutral in order for the magnetic field to transition. A magnetic boundary is very important and relates to your next statement.
The field is continuous and unbroken from end-to-end. The external field can be diverted but not broken.
This is simply an artifact from the misleading lines and loops model which is not real but imaginary. In fact, the field cannot be continuous because we have already established that it must "transition" between each internal domain or boundary condition. The term quanta should come to mind where it was established that nothing is in fact continuous.
Consider what I know you already know. If we place many capacitors in series all the connection wires between the capacitors become neutral points. So each capacitor looks like this (-)plate>>>dielectric<<<(+)plate.
However in series we get this, (-)plate>>>dielectric<<<
(+-)>>>dielectric<<<(+).
The connection wires between the capacitors becomes a neutral point
(+-) where the two polarities cancel in effect producing a one capacitor with a greater distance between the outer plates having twice the voltage. Have you ever considered the exact mechanism as to how this happens?. It's quite remarkable if we think about it.
In fact, this same field addition/neutralization process occurs whether it is an electric, magnetic or gravic field. In some sense it has literally nothing to do with fields but more so logic and reason. This is how I discovered all this stuff happening under the surface in the first place. You see, logically we cannot claim something made a transition from state A to state B without a transition point through something which is neither A nor B. Consider the zero crossing we have all seen countless times on our oscilloscopes, why call it a "zero crossing"?. What does everyone think "zero" means?.
How this concept has eluded so many people for so long eludes me...
AC
Quoteauthor=poynt99 link=topic=4661.msg112178#msg112178 date=1715865886
Quote- From the perspective of the coupled device (coil or wire), there exists a degree of net induced voltage that is dependent upon its orientation and relative position along the length of the magnet during the induction (changing field) process.
So, as we mostly use coupled devices when it comes to things like electromagnetic induction, electric motors-etc, you would agree, although the field still exists (as i have stated many times now), the value of induction at the center point of the field along the length of a magnet, would have an equal and opposite value, and result in no induction taking place.
So to be clear, the value of the field entering the core of an inductor at the mid point of the PMs field between poles, is the exact same value of the field exiting the core at the same point, meaning that the net value of the field within the core is 0? If so, is this not a neutral point within the field as i have claimed?, where the field cannot provide a net induced field into the core of the coil.
Secondly- If we take a conductive plate, such as may be used to collect charge, and we have a positive charge impacting that plate on one face of the plate, and an equal negative charge impacting the same plate on the opposite face, what would be the net charge value on the plate?
-
QuoteFrom the perspective of the magnet itself and its inherent field, there exists no internal or external null or neutral zone along its length.
This is not correct.
From the perspective total fields of a PM, there exists a neutral point at the center of the PMs body between poles, at the surface of the PMs body.
Even the accepted field theory shows this to be true, which is why, say a transformer laminate, will not even stick to the center of the PM body, between the poles.
Brad
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.15, 04:52:27
PW
QuoteI agree, but alternate explanations can be had, or theorized, that do not negate hundreds of years of observation and measurement.
Hundreds of years of observation, measurements, and even Eilenstines general theory of relativity states that gravitational forces should see the universe contract, and yet it expands with increasing speed.
Science now says there must be another force involve, which they call dark energy. Yet to be found or observed, but sound evidence it must exist.
QuoteYour two field theory does not explain what a magnetic field "is", anymore than the single field theory does.
But it does. It is a charge separation, where like charges repel, and unlike charges attract, just as electrical charges do.
QuoteIt just redefines its properties in ways that are not supported by measurements
As the outcomes results in the very same outcomes to that of the single field theory, then it is just as verified as the single field theory.
QuoteSo now we need additional unknown "charges" of some unknown nature to make the two field theory work.
As we did with the photon, so as we could work out how a solar panels works.
The photon was only theorized back in 1905 by Einstein, and he called it light quanta.
QuoteDoes your two field theory actually tell us what a magnetic field actually "is",
Yes, equal and opposite charges.
Quoteyou are just assigning additional characterizations with a new theory.
Is that not what all new theories do?
QuoteCan your separate "charges" exist as monopoles
Yes they can, and i have shown an example of this.
QuoteWhy do these opposite charges repel? What is the force that causes that?
The opposite charges attract, not repel.
QuoteHow does removing "field lines, arrows, and pole denotations" in any way support your two field theory? Shall we also discard the right hand rule and everything else science has been able to measure, characterize, and simulate with regard to the character and interactions of a magnetic field?
No, we should discard nothing, as the two theories work the same.
QuoteDoes this mean that the three coil experiment was your only proof of the two field theory?
No.
I have provided other examples on this thread.
QuoteSomewhat unrelated to the single pole/two pole question of a PM, scientists have studied the Earth's magnetosphere in some detail. Charged particles can become trapped by and travel between the poles following what at least appears to be magnetic field lines. The spiral path those particles follow along a "line" obey the vectors of the single field theory. additionally, the plasmasphere contains charged particles trapped by the Earth's magnetic field that co-rotate with Earth's magnetic field.
Odd how earths whole magnetic field rejects/deflects most of these charged particles, and at no point in the field attracts them- see pic below.
And how exactly does a molten pool of metal and rock produce a nice uniform magnetic field around the earth, that looks like the magnetic field of that of a sphere PM?
How exactly are all the magnetic domains lining up in that pool of molten iron, to form this magnetic field?
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.17, 02:53:56
Hundreds of years of observation, measurements, and even Eilenstines general theory of relativity states that gravitational forces should see the universe contract, and yet it expands with increasing speed.
Science now says there must be another force involve, which they call dark energy. Yet to be found or observed, but sound evidence it must exist.
Yes, and I believe that eventually they will find what Faraday, Thomson, and Maxwell might have worked out, had they hung out on the porch and had a few beers together. But what part of this supports your two field claim?
Quote
But it does. It is a charge separation, where like charges repel, and unlike charges attract, just as electrical charges do.
No, it doesn't explain what a magnetic field is, anymore than your comparisons to electric charges explains what an electric field is. You are suggesting something of opposite polarity is emitted at opposing ends of a magnet, a theory considered since the discovery of the lodestone, but what the actual field "is" or "is not" made of, is not answered by your two field theory. Do you know what this "charge" you speak of actually is? Is it electrical, gravitational, unknown, etc?
Quote
As the outcomes results in the very same outcomes to that of the single field theory, then it is just as verified as the single field theory.
I have questions regarding this. I'll discuss in a different post;
Quote
As we did with the photon, so as we could work out how a solar panels works.
The photon was only theorized back in 1905 by Einstein, and he called it light quanta.
Again, the idea of "something opposite" at each end of a magnet is as old as the discovery of lodestones. Just like we did with regard to the photon and the photoelectric effect, science worked gained a better understanding of the field conditions surrounding a PM.
Quote
Yes, equal and opposite charges.
Again, this does not tell us what a magnetic field is, anymore than the single field theory does. Now instead of one "charge" of some sort, we have two, But what the magnetic field is actually made of is, in my opinion, unexplained by either concept.
Quote
Yes they can, and i have shown an example of this.
Although sought after for years using all manner of detection, magnetic monopoles have yet to be discovered. Redirecting the field of a magnet or magnets so that it "appears" to be a monopole, or burying one pole in a sphere, is not the same as a monopole. In your electrical charges comparison, we can readily isolate particles, ions, etc, that have a single charge, a monopole of sorts. To date, this cannot be done with regard to a magnet. Even at the single atom scale, the magnetic field appears to be unidirectional as convention indicates.
Quote
The opposite charges attract, not repel.
I get what you are saying, but again, you are defining a property or action, but not what the field actually is. Why do opposites attract and like repel? (I mispoke originally).
In your charged capacitor drawing, why is there no null indicated in the center of its field? What is different about your proposed charges that cause them to produce a null in the middle of the magnet?
Quote
No, we should discard nothing, as the two theories work the same.
As stated, I have a question about this.
Quote
No.
I have provided other examples on this thread.
I must have missed the other experiments you posted that support the two field theory.
Quote
Odd how earths whole magnetic field rejects/deflects most of these charged particles, and at no point in the field attracts them- see pic below.
And how exactly does a molten pool of metal and rock produce a nice uniform magnetic field around the earth, that looks like the magnetic field of that of a sphere PM?
How exactly are all the magnetic domains lining up in that pool of molten iron, to form this magnetic field?
You need to research this area regarding the Earth's core, their are some pretty good theories and/or explanations of the mechanisms involved. The ionosphere and plasmasphere are of particular interest to me.
With regard to the Earth's magnetic field deflecting charged particles, thankfully, there is no "null" in the field at the magnetic equator to allow particles in.
We recently had an incredible display of Aurora Borealis, quite the sight to see...
PW
Brad,
I have a question regarding your two field theory as depicted by "FIELD GRADIENT 1.bmp in reply #102 (which I have attached below).
Using the closed fist right hand rule (fingers closed, thumb pointing in the direction of the B field vector) we would place the heel of our fist on the face of the N pole of the magnet with our thumb pointing left in the direction of the N pole vectors. At the S pole (P in your drawing) we would place the tip of our thumb against the face of the S pole with our thumb continuing to point toward the left. The curl of our fingers tells us which way electrons would be deflected at those two locations.
With your two pole theory, the magnet (and the right hand rule) supposedly behaves similarly because whatever the opposite "charges" are coming out of the magnet at the S pole, and even though they are flowing away from the pole, their magnetic polarity is the same as seen in the traditional sense.
OK, let's follow a field line. At the N pole, we remove the heel of our fist from the magnet's N pole, rotate our wrist to follow the field line's hairpin curve toward the S pole, our thumb now points to the right, following the blue arrow vectors.
At the S pole, we remove the tip of our thumb from the magnet's pole and rotate our wrist to make the field line's hairpin curve toward the N pole, and again, our thumb, now points to the right.
Anywhere we position our fist between the N and S pole along a field line, the magnetic field's vectors, and our thumb, always points to the right.
If the "magnetic polarity" is the same all along the field lines, what is actually cancelling in the center to produce your proposed null?
Consider your charged capacitor drawing of a few posts back, do you propose the electrical field lines are also incorrect and that there should also be a null in the middle of that field as well?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.17, 05:07:13
Brad,
I have a question regarding your two field theory as depicted by "FIELD GRADIENT 1.bmp in reply #102 (which I have attached below).
Using the closed fist right hand rule (fingers closed, thumb pointing in the direction of the B field vector) we would place the heel of our fist on the face of the N pole of the magnet with our thumb pointing left in the direction of the N pole vectors. .
With your two pole theory, the magnet (and the right hand rule) supposedly behaves similarly because whatever the opposite "charges" are coming out of the magnet at the S pole, and even though they are flowing away from the pole, their magnetic polarity is the same as seen in the traditional sense.
OK, let's follow a field line. At the N pole, we remove the heel of our fist from the magnet's N pole, rotate our wrist to follow the field line's hairpin curve toward the S pole, our thumb now points to the right, following the blue arrow vectors.
At the S pole, we remove the tip of our thumb from the magnet's pole and rotate our wrist to make the field line's hairpin curve toward the N pole, and again, our thumb, now points to the right.
Anywhere we position our fist between the N and S pole along a field line, the magnetic field's vectors, and our thumb, always points to the right.
If the "magnetic polarity" is the same all along the field lines, what is actually cancelling in the center to produce your proposed null?
Consider your charged capacitor drawing of a few posts back, do you propose the electrical field lines are also incorrect and that there should also be a null in the middle of that field as well?
PW
With the capacitor plate model. there is indeed a point in the center and around the two plates, where the charge value is neither negative or positive, but an equal value of both.
The standard model of the field shows no reason why unlike poles repel, or like poles attract.
Looking at the !man made! vectors, we see these vectors coming out of the north end, and going in the south end.
Can you explain what is coming out and going into the PM body that causes this attraction between unlike poles, and repulsion between like poles?
Do you know of any other kind of force, other than negative and positive charges that behave like this?- and please don't say the magnetic force, as that is the force you are trying to explain.
Can i ask you this- Does the standard model of the magnetic field allow for a mono pole field around a ferromagnetic object, such as a steel sphere?
Does not the current model dictate that any magnetic object that carries a magnetic field, must have an equal and opposite field, were in current theory, the north field must be equal to. but opposite of the south field? If this is correct, then any unmagnetized ferromagnetic object placed near say the north fields of a PM, must have an equal and opposite south field-correct?
This must also mean that any unmagnetized ferromagnetic object will always be attracted to a PMs field-right.
Does the current field theory allow for an unmagnetized ferromagnetic object to be repelled by the field of a PM?
I have a video that i made years back, showing a steel ball being repelled by a magnetic field.
If we use the two field theory, it is clearly explained as to why that steel ball can be repelled by a magnetic field.
The reason we never use the field between the two poles, for things like electric motors and generators, is because that part of the field is neutral--it cant deliver any sort of useful work.
I am all ears if you can explain as to what the field is, and how it makes like poles repel, and unlike poles attract.
The two field theory explains that, and more, like the field being able to repel a steel ball.
And just because i don't know exactly what this charged field is around the PM body, and through all space, does not mean it does not exist.
You can't explain as to what the field is around a PM body, that exerts these forces either. Does that mean we dismiss the current field theory?
Telling me that it exerts a force on a charge is not telling me what is exerting a force on that charge.
Ask anyone here what exerts a force on a charge in an electric field, and we can all give an accurate answer.
Ask that same question about the magnetic field, and we get--well we don't know yet, but the model is correct.
QuoteAt the S pole (P in your drawing) we would place the tip of our thumb against the face of the S pole with our thumb continuing to point toward the left. The curl of our fingers tells us which way electrons would be deflected at those two locations
So we know what places a force on an electron within an electric field.
I want to know what places a force on the electron in the magnetic field.
When some one asks how a train pulls the carriages, you don't answer by saying-the train pulls the carriages.
I need to know what the engine is, and how it works.
See, here is my problem PW.
In the not to distant future, i am going to be asked to explain as to how something i invented works.
The problem i have is, the current magnetic field theory says the field is conservative, and that is not going to work for me.
So, i need to find a field theory that fits and works for said invention.
My current two field theory fits like a glove.
All my experiments over the past 30 odd years, point toward this two field theory being correct.
The two field theory allows for an imbalance within the fields, where it could be said that the north field can be of greater magnitude to that of the south field-an imbalance of charge-much like the asymmetric capacitor.
Here is an interesting video to watch
This guy has very high credentials
Propellantless Propulsion Device
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhsKMWOYuYo
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.16, 11:02:28
<snip>
I have never said the fields are not there, they are just neutral- a point in the fields that can do no work, such as induction.
<snip>
I believe I have shown that you can do work there, only in the direction perpendicular to the axis (& field).
bi
ps. Thanks for posting that video in reply #153. Wow!
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.17, 10:48:13
ps. Thanks for posting that video in reply #153. Wow!
Looks like it might be the real deal this time.
Perhaps one law of physics broken- or should i say, better understood or extended upon.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.17, 01:56:16
<snip>
So to be clear, the value of the field entering the core of an inductor at the mid point of the PMs field between poles, is the exact same value of the field exiting the core at the same point, meaning that the net value of the field within the core is 0? If so, is this not a neutral point within the field as i have claimed?, where the field cannot provide a net induced field into the core of the coil.
<snip>
Brad
Brad,
What you say applies anywhere in the field per Gauss's Law.
bi
QuoteGauss's Law for Magnetic Field
The net magnetic flux 舍B through any closed surface is equal to zero: ∮ B · dA = 0. There are no magnetic charges. Magnetic field lines always close in themselves. No matter how the (closed) Gaussian surface is chosen, the net magnetic flux through it always vanishes.
25. Gauss's law for the magnetic field. Ampere's law with applications
Gerhard Müller
University of Rhode Island, gmuller@uri.edu
Robert Coyne
University of Rhode Island, robcoyne@uri.edu
_______
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.17, 13:57:01
Looks like it might be the real deal this time.
If it is then getting to Mars at constant 1 g acceleration takes just 89 hours, to Jupiter is 157 hours. It only takes a year to reach near light speed...
Breaking not included....
Bistander
QuoteGauss's Law for Magnetic Field
The net magnetic flux 舍B through any closed surface is equal to zero: ∮ B · dA = 0. There are no magnetic charges. Magnetic field lines always close in themselves. No matter how the (closed) Gaussian surface is chosen, the net magnetic flux through it always vanishes.
This is contradictory on several levels. How do you know "There are no magnetic charges" when you have no idea what a magnetic field is?. As well, magnetic field lines are an imaginary contrivance so it hardly matters what they do. I think it's more productive to focus on reality.
Your premise is also contradictory. Science claims magnetic and electric fields sum to zero but you seem to be implying there is no zero?. If there is no neutral point or zero then why do you keep using the term zero?. Here's a clue, let's say we measure one field value at +1 and it transitions to a second value of -1. How do you think +1 transitioned to -1?, did it just magically become the other or did it transition through every value in between the two values which includes zero?. The keyword here is "transition".
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.17, 18:55:30
Bistander
This is contradictory on several levels. How do you know "There are no magnetic charges" when you have no idea what a magnetic field is?. As well, magnetic field lines are an imaginary contrivance so it hardly matters what they do. I think it's more productive to focus on reality.
Your premise is also contradictory. Science claims magnetic and electric fields sum to zero but you seem to be implying there is no zero?. If there is no neutral point or zero then why do you keep using the term zero?. Here's a clue, let's say we measure one field value at +1 and it transitions to a second value of -1. How do you think +1 transitioned to -1?, did it just magically become the other or did it transition through every value in between the two values which includes zero?. The keyword here is "transition".
AC
Hi AC,
I noticed you quote Richard P. Feynman after every post. So:
QuoteChatGPT
User
Did Richard P. Feynman teach, or support Gauss's law?
ChatGPT
Yes, Richard P. Feynman taught and supported Gauss's law. As a prominent physicist and educator, Feynman extensively covered Gauss's law in his lectures and writings. In his famous "Feynman Lectures on Physics," Gauss's law is thoroughly discussed, particularly in Volume II, which focuses on electromagnetism. Feynman explained Gauss's law in the context of electric fields, emphasizing its significance in understanding the relationship between electric charges and electric flux. He elucidated its mathematical formulation and physical implications, demonstrating how it is a fundamental principle in classical electrodynamics.
User
Thanks, bi
ChatGPT
You're welcome! If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask.
bi
Some questions open to all (if you are so inclined):
What is a Bloch wall, how is it formed, are there degrees to which a Bloch wall forms (hint: consider angles between adjacent domains), and provide an explanation as to what extent Bloch walls are likely to form within a fully saturated rod magnet, and how such formations may impact the over all continuity of the B field inside and outside the rod magnet in terms of any non-ideal or unexpected inductive effects created within nearby coupled devices, such as a coil.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.17, 21:26:35
Some questions open to all (if you are so inclined):
What is a Bloch wall, how is it formed, are there degrees to which a Bloch wall forms (hint: consider angles between adjacent domains), and provide an explanation as to what extent Bloch walls are likely to form within a fully saturated rod magnet, and how such formations may impact the over all continuity of the B field inside and outside the rod magnet in terms of any non-ideal or unexpected inductive effects created within nearby coupled devices, such as a coil.
Hi poynt99,
I wonder if a fully saturated PM has any Bloch walls, and don't think Bloch walls in PMs have any effects on nearby coupled devices. Domain walls in general can affect induction in a coil via the Barkhausen effect. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkhausen_effect)
Also reference my replies #3 and #26 in this thread for some definitions and information on the subject.
bi
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.17, 08:04:14
See, here is my problem PW.
In the not to distant future, i am going to be asked to explain as to how something i invented works.
Then you should welcome these debates and discussions. If I were to invent something that appeared to defy explanation using our current scientific understanding of the field surrounding a magnet, I would want to make sure I fully understand what that current scientific understanding actually is.
Scientists and engineers have produced excellent mathematical models and subsequent simulation software to the point that they can design a magnet shape or pole assembly to produce a field of just about any desired field geometry. Many fields of science and engineering use these mathematical models and computer simulations every day to design everything from efficient motors to plasma containment.
You are up against a huge field of study that has reached a fairly high state of the art as far as being able to define and model the magnitudes and vectors anywhere in the field surrounding a magnet or magnetic assembly.
Scientists may not yet be seeing what the "field" is actually made of or in, but they have definitely worked out the math that allows accurate predictions and simulations.
I think I understand your proposed two field theory. The most difficult to reconcile aspect of your proposal is the stated null, canceled field, or polarity change that happens at the center of the field. None of the above discussed modeling indicates that a null is there.
So, if I had an invention that I believed required their to be a "null" in the field as you propose, and all of science and simulation says there is no null, I would first ask, what does the current model say about that area?. We know it is the region of the field where the field is most homogeneous. It is also where field lines are most parallel to the magnet's axis. It is the area of the field where a coil can be positioned with maximum perpendicularity to the field lines for minimum induction. Can any of these properties be shoehorned to fit into your device's theory of operation?
Have you considered having the magnetic aspects of your invention simulated with software to see if similar results can be attained before invoking non-conventional thinking?
On a side note, I cringe every time you use the word "flow" or "flowing"with regard to a conventional field line and vector diagram. All it is telling us is the polarity and magnitude at any point in the field. The vector arrows do not indicate flow. Remember too, that there can be as many field lines as you desire, depending on the required resolution of the analysis/simulation you are performing and that the field is actually in 3D.
Quote
The problem i have is, the current magnetic field theory says the field is conservative, and that is not going to work for me.
I see this as an entirely different subject. If your invention requires the field to be non-conservative, I do not see how either the current field theory or your proposed two field theory allows for this. It would seem that some other aspect of the field would need to be invoked for this to be possible. Something that would allow additional properties to be theorized that may not be accounted for in the current simulations and understandings. There are additional theories that consider what may be driving electron motion in seeming perpetuity that deal moreso with the nature of matter and the vacuum that may allow for "apparent" non-conservation, but how deep we want to go down that rabbit hole depends moreso on the nature of your invention.
Quote
So, i need to find a field theory that fits and works for said invention.
My current two field theory fits like a glove.
All my experiments over the past 30 odd years, point toward this two field theory being correct.
The two field theory allows for an imbalance within the fields, where it could be said that the north field can be of greater magnitude to that of the south field-an imbalance of charge-much like the asymmetric capacitor.
I have magnetized iron and nickel rods such that when measured using a Hall probe, a fairly large difference in strength at opposing poles is observed. As well, an almost diode type action can be observed wherein the strength of the field measured at one end of the rod is preferential to the polarity applied at the opposing end. After many tedious measurements, I believe this action can be fully explained using the conventional model.
Please do not consider our debate adversarial. A good theory should hold up to scrutiny. You should welcome the controversy as it may help you refine your theory.
Please make sure you fully understand the current model of the magnetic field, at least with regard to magnitude and polarity within the field, before stating those magnitude and polarity measurements are incorrect. That's going to be a tough hill to climb. Be sure you have fully exhausted all possible explanations that fall within the realm of our current understanding before feeling the need to invoke something new.
I am indeed rooting for you and wish you only the best in any of your endeavors. I look forward to the day you are able to disclose your invention.
PW
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.18, 01:25:02
Hi poynt99,
I wonder if a fully saturated PM has any Bloch walls, and don't think Bloch walls in PMs have any effects on nearby coupled devices. Domain walls in general can affect induction in a coil via the Barkhausen effect. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkhausen_effect)
Also reference my replies #3 and #26 in this thread for some definitions and information on the subject.
bi
I think we are in 100% agreement bistander. I would however like for those that challenge this understanding to walk us through the steps I have outlined in my questions.
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.17, 01:56:16
So to be clear, the value of the field entering the core of an inductor at the mid point of the PMs field between poles, is the exact same value of the field exiting the core at the same point, meaning that the net value of the field within the core is 0? If so, is this not a neutral point within the field as i have claimed?, where the field cannot provide a net induced field into the core of the coil.
It does not mean that the net value of the B field within the coil's core is 0. The magnetic field is in fact alive and well within the coil's core, and the field itself does not cancel or reduce to a null value in any way.
The 2 induced voltages of the coupled coil are what completely cancel if the core is at the centre of the rod magnet. Induction still takes place, but the resulting positive and negative
induced voltages cancel to produce a net voltage of 0.
The key to understanding this "net-zero" result is to realize that the flux density
entering the core from one end of the magnet induces a voltage equal and opposite in polarity to the voltage resulting from the same flux density
exiting the core on its way to the opposite end of the magnet (assuming the core is in middle of the rod magnet). If the core is moved closer to one of the ends of the rod magnet, the flux densities entering and exiting the coil core are no longer equal, and so the net induced voltage is non-zero.
Note: An alternate and perhaps more succinct terminology for "entering" and "exiting" the coil core, is "approaching" and "departing" the coil core. However, neither terminology is in reference to the relative physical movement between the magnet and coil core, it is in reference to the direction-of and coupling-to the rod magnet's B field.
Why won't worked out a magnetic monopole if many bar magnets we forced with one pole inside a some ball?
Meanwhile, only identical poles of magnets will be output at the surface of sphere.
How can the opposite pole come out from inside the ball to the surface ?
???
picowatt
QuoteThen you should welcome these debates and discussions. If I were to invent something that appeared to defy explanation using our current scientific understanding of the field surrounding a magnet, I would want to make sure I fully understand what that current scientific understanding actually is.
I agree and FE tech can be a double edged sword. On one hand the FE inventor must be unique and thinking on a different level from another perspective to succeed. On the other hand this creativity and originality tends to conflict with the others more conventional way of thinking.
QuoteI think I understand your proposed two field theory. The most difficult to reconcile aspect of your proposal is the stated null, canceled field, or polarity change that happens at the center of the field. None of the above discussed modeling indicates that a null is there.
So, if I had an invention that I believed required their to be a "null" in the field as you propose, and all of science and simulation says there is no null, I would first ask, what does the current model say about that area?. We know it is the region of the field where the field is most homogeneous. It is also where field lines are most parallel to the magnet's axis. It is the area of the field where a coil can be positioned with maximum perpendicularity to the field lines for minimum induction. Can any of these properties be shoehorned to fit into your device's theory of operation?
I think I can answer this question because my zero point theory is very similar to Tinman's two field theory.
My premise is based on an already accepted theory that
one condition cannot transition into another condition without becoming neither and/or both conditions in the process. This is a first principal relating directly to cause and effect.
Let's look at the logic and reasoning behind the theory.
When we claim something has changed into something else we must then explain exactly how it has changed. So when people claim a bar magnet has two different poles N and S which have two different qualities we can assume some kind of change has occurred. We cannot claim there there is no change because we already have tangible proof there is. The like poles repel and the unlike poles attract which is proof the magnetic field at the poles is not the same and have two different qualities.
In reality this has nothing to do with lines, loops or the current modelling more so first principals relating directly to cause and effect. Ergo, one condition cannot transition into another condition without becoming neither and/or both conditions in the process. Logically, there must be a transition zone otherwise there can be no transition.
QuoteI see this as an entirely different subject. If your invention requires the field to be non-conservative, I do not see how either the current field theory or your proposed two field theory allows for this.
It's very easy to understand, the Conservation of Energy always applies because it is a first principal. One thing cannot act on another thing without an equal and opposite reaction occurring somewhere in the system. However energy can be converted or transformed in countless ways. So yes one field or more or part of it could easily be non-conservative so long as the total energy is conserved. This is where most people go wrong in my opinion.
I like the easy answer concerning FE devices, there is more that I do not know than I could possibly know. So a machine doing something I do not understand is unavoidable. I see nothing remarkable or impossible about it because no person can know everything. In fact, when I was sent to go evaluate many FE devices I thought it was kind of boring. It was countless hours of boredom trying to figure out what the inventor was thinking and what they had done. I like FE because I like using logic and reason to work through problems. The more difficult the problem the more I like it.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.18, 17:29:32
My premise is based on an already accepted theory that one condition cannot transition into another condition without becoming neither and/or both conditions in the process. This is a first principal relating directly to cause and effect.
This is worth coming out of hiding for and saying at least there is something we agree on. In fact I would go one step further, at some point there is a random 50% chance decision that has to be made. The cat is either dead or alive you choose. That is the fact Einstein couldn't accept, that out of randomness and a few simple rules a whole universe can be constructed.
Quoteauthor=poynt99 link=topic=4661.msg112210#msg112210 date=1716003766
QuoteIt does not mean that the net value of the B field within the coil's core is 0.
Ok, i do not understand as to how you come to a non 0 value, as if the value of the B field was not 0 within the core, then induction would take place, which would show a non 0 value of EMF produced across the coil.
If the B field vectors and flux density entering the core are equal to, but opposite of that exiting the core, at exactly the same time, then the total flux density, and the vector of that flux, is 0 at any given time. If we push on an object with a force of say 5 newtons, while also pulling on that same object with the same force of 5 newtons, then the object sees no net force applied to it.
QuoteThe magnetic field is in fact alive and well within the coil's core, and the field itself does not cancel or reduce to a null value in any way. The 2 induced voltages of the coupled coil are what completely cancel if the core is at the centre of the rod magnet. Induction still takes place, but the resulting positive and negative induced voltages cancel to produce a net voltage of 0.
First up, i have never used the term !null!, I have always stated neutral.
Ok, so the positive and negative values of the coil are equal to, but opposite of each other, and the net value is 0.
This means that the value of the flux entering the core at a given vector, must be the exact same value of the flux of the opposite vector leaving the core, using the field vector arrow depiction of the magnetic field vectors. So these field vectors have to sum to 0--no net vector through the core to induce an EMF across the coil.
When you have an equal to, but opposite of, any two quantities of anything, then the net value of those quantities always sums to 0, meaning it is a neutral value.
QuoteThe key to understanding this "net-zero" result is to realize that the flux density entering the core from one end of the magnet induces a voltage equal and opposite in polarity to the voltage resulting from the same flux density exiting the core on its way to the opposite end of the magnet (assuming the core is in middle of the rod magnet). If the core is moved closer to one of the ends of the rod magnet, the flux densities entering and exiting the coil core are no longer equal, and so the net induced voltage is non-zero.
My point exactly.
At the center there is no net value- the two values are the same as each other, but opposite to each other, and therefor that is a neutral point within the magnetic field.
To quote: (The neutral point between two charges is the point at which the electric fields of the two charges cancel each other out, resulting in a net electric field of zero. This point is important because any object placed at the neutral point will experience no electrostatic force from the two charges.)
Is this point in the magnetic field not one in the same?
Brad
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.18, 02:41:40
Then you should welcome these debates and discussions. If I were to invent something that appeared to defy explanation using our current scientific understanding of the field surrounding a magnet, I would want to make sure I fully understand what that current scientific understanding actually is.
Scientists and engineers have produced excellent mathematical models and subsequent simulation software to the point that they can design a magnet shape or pole assembly to produce a field of just about any desired field geometry. Many fields of science and engineering use these mathematical models and computer simulations every day to design everything from efficient motors to plasma containment.
You are up against a huge field of study that has reached a fairly high state of the art as far as being able to define and model the magnitudes and vectors anywhere in the field surrounding a magnet or magnetic assembly.
Scientists may not yet be seeing what the "field" is actually made of or in, but they have definitely worked out the math that allows accurate predictions and simulations.
I think I understand your proposed two field theory. The most difficult to reconcile aspect of your proposal is the stated null, canceled field, or polarity change that happens at the center of the field. None of the above discussed modeling indicates that a null is there.
So, if I had an invention that I believed required their to be a "null" in the field as you propose, and all of science and simulation says there is no null, I would first ask, what does the current model say about that area?. We know it is the region of the field where the field is most homogeneous. It is also where field lines are most parallel to the magnet's axis. It is the area of the field where a coil can be positioned with maximum perpendicularity to the field lines for minimum induction. Can any of these properties be shoehorned to fit into your device's theory of operation?
Have you considered having the magnetic aspects of your invention simulated with software to see if similar results can be attained before invoking non-conventional thinking?
On a side note, I cringe every time you use the word "flow" or "flowing"with regard to a conventional field line and vector diagram. All it is telling us is the polarity and magnitude at any point in the field. The vector arrows do not indicate flow. Remember too, that there can be as many field lines as you desire, depending on the required resolution of the analysis/simulation you are performing and that the field is actually in 3D.
I see this as an entirely different subject. If your invention requires the field to be non-conservative, I do not see how either the current field theory or your proposed two field theory allows for this. It would seem that some other aspect of the field would need to be invoked for this to be possible. Something that would allow additional properties to be theorized that may not be accounted for in the current simulations and understandings. There are additional theories that consider what may be driving electron motion in seeming perpetuity that deal moreso with the nature of matter and the vacuum that may allow for "apparent" non-conservation, but how deep we want to go down that rabbit hole depends moreso on the nature of your invention.
I have magnetized iron and nickel rods such that when measured using a Hall probe, a fairly large difference in strength at opposing poles is observed. As well, an almost diode type action can be observed wherein the strength of the field measured at one end of the rod is preferential to the polarity applied at the opposing end. After many tedious measurements, I believe this action can be fully explained using the conventional model.
Please do not consider our debate adversarial. A good theory should hold up to scrutiny. You should welcome the controversy as it may help you refine your theory.
Please make sure you fully understand the current model of the magnetic field, at least with regard to magnitude and polarity within the field, before stating those magnitude and polarity measurements are incorrect. That's going to be a tough hill to climb. Be sure you have fully exhausted all possible explanations that fall within the realm of our current understanding before feeling the need to invoke something new.
I am indeed rooting for you and wish you only the best in any of your endeavors. I look forward to the day you are able to disclose your invention.
PW
Am I correct by stating that we both believe that when the body of the PM is magnetized, this field that forms around the PM body, does not come from within the PM material itself, but where a field around the body of the PM, and in all space, already existed, and was organized in some form, to form what we call the magnetic field?
Ok, if that is correct, then lets do a little thought experiment.
Lets take a water pump ( 1Kw centrifugal type), where the water pump is our PM body, which is yet to be magnetized.
Now we take 4 foot of clear tube, and we loop it from the outlet of the water pump, around to the inlet of the water pump.
We now fill the whole system with water, removing all the air within this loop.
We now switch on the water pump (magnetize the PM body).
Now this would represent how the PM is shown to us, where we have arrows pointing out of the north of the PM (water flowing out of the pump), and into the south of the PM (water flowing into the pump)
Now, to be clear, although the arrows on the vector lines of the PM field are not showing a flow of some kind, we don't actually know if there is a flow of anything, as we don't yet know what the magnetic field actually is. But the water flowing out of the pump, looping around, and going back into the pump, would be much the same as the magnetic vectors, and a direction of force. If we look at the flow of that water, we know that the !force! is in one direction, such as may be said for the PM field. But we need to look at what is creating that force direction within the flowing water.
Is it from the pump pushing the water out?, or is it from the pump sucking the water in?
If we place pressure gauges along that clear tube that loops the water through the pump, we will find that near the outlet, the pressure is a high positive value.
But the pressure gauge near the inlet of the pump, will show a high negative value.
So, at the outlet, it would seem the pump is pushing the water out, and at the inlet, it would seem the pump is sucking the water in.
As we move our pressure gauge along the tube from the outlet, toward the center of the length of tube, we would see a slow decline in positive pressure.
As we move the pressure gauge from the inlet side, toward the center of the tube, we would see a decline in negative pressure.
Then, at the center of the length of tube, although the water is still flowing with the same force through the tube, the value of pressure is 0- it is the neutral point of both the positive and negative pressures.
This is how i see the magnetic fields. Although the force (flow of water) remains the same, no pressure is placed on a pressure gauge that is placed at the center of the tube, between the outlet and inlet of the pump. This is much the same as the core of a coil being place placed at the center of the field that exists between the two poles of a PM, where no induction can occur, due to there being no net field being induced into the core of the coil, even though that field (flowing water) still exists.
Now, if we place a thin flat blade inside that tube, at the center point, so as it can act like a rudder, and we turn that blade to the left, it will experience a force pushing it to the left.
And if we turn it to the right, it will experience a force to the right (the Lorentz force). But the pressure value remains at 0 at that point where the blade is.
So we can see the pressure gauges along that tube as being the cores of the coils, where the center core (gauge) sees no net value in this field, as the field is neutral.
What i do know is, this field or fields can be manipulated to either attract or repel unmagnetized ferromagnetic materials, such as steel and iron-etc.
One would think that the single field would only allow for an attraction toward unmagnetized ferromagnetic materials.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.15, 05:35:31
Nor will any ferromagnetic material stick to the center of the PMs body, but will stick to any point either side of the center, regardless of which way the field vectors are going.
If you stick ferromagnetic metal to the side of the magnet at the Blotch Wall, you are right.
But if you align 2 poles side by side to form a Blotch Wall, the situation totally changes. Not only does metal stick at the polarity divide, it is the strongest force and the metal will pull itself to the new "Blotch Wall".
Observe:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqC6r0a8EaA
Maybe I am wrong, but this tells me that the Blotch Wall on the side of a magnet has no force. The poles weaken to zero before going into the opposite domain. I come to this conclusion because the test I did above clearly shows metal has no problem sticking to 2 opposite polarities. If the side Blotch Wall had magnetic strength, the bolt would stick to the dividing line like it did in the video when we use the faces..
Quote from: floodrod on 2024.05.19, 02:50:29
If you stick ferromagnetic metal to the side of the magnet at the Blotch Wall, you are right.
But if you align 2 poles side by side to form a Blotch Wall, the situation totally changes. Not only does metal stick at the polarity divide, it is the strongest force and the metal will pull itself to the new "Blotch Wall".
Observe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqC6r0a8EaA
Maybe I am wrong, but this tells me that the Blotch Wall on the side of a magnet has no force. The poles weaken to zero before going into the opposite domain. I come to this conclusion because the test I did above clearly shows metal has no problem sticking to 2 opposite polarities. If the side Blotch Wall had magnetic strength, the bolt would stick to the dividing line like it did in the video when we use the faces..
I do not see it as a bloch wall, but your video shows clearly what i am talking about, where the bolt sees an equal but opposite field, which results in a net flux of 0 in the bolt, and where-as your video clearly shows, no net magnetic flux exists within the bolt. The flux is at the surface of the bolt that is across the two fields. Entropy tells us the bolt will seek the lowest point of energy, not the highest.
The same thing happens if you try to get a thin steel laminate to stick edge on to the center of the fields of a long bar or rod magnet-it does not stick, regardless of being in the field.
This is because there is no net flux induced into the steel laminate, due to the field entering the steel laminate being equal to the field exiting the steel laminate, which means no net field within the steel laminate.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.19, 01:44:33
Am I correct by stating that we both believe that when the body of the PM is magnetized, this field that forms around the PM body, does not come from within the PM material itself, but where a field around the body of the PM, and in all space, already existed, and was organized in some form, to form what we call the magnetic field?
Brad,
You and I are so far apart with our modeling of what is going on inside and outside a magnet, I am hesitant to agree with you on anything.
I read your horrible analogy, which I won't bother copying here, but the closest you came to describing anything close to a magnetic field was when you inserted a rudder into your tube and measured the force and direction the water was imparting on the rudder. Given a constant flow rate, the rudder sees the same force anywhere along the tube, and points in the direction of the vector. But that is all that was analogous.
You really need to slap yourself silly every time you use the word flow, or any of its derivatives, when contemplating a magnetic field. Only you can be honest with yourself, but having read your posts, it seems to me that at some point in your life you saw a drawing of a magnet with field lines and vectors and took that drawing to mean something was "flowing" out of the N pole and returning back into the magnet at the S pole. After contemplating this for some time, it suddenly occurred to you that this can't be right because two S poles would attract. So you spent the decades since pondering this dilemma, and the best you have come up with is some sort of alternate "flow" type theory that somehow proves science to be wrong and you to be right.
As soon as you realized the flow model allowed two S poles to attract, you should have considered that perhaps it was your understanding of the field drawing that was in error, and not the "science" behind it.
So here we are decades later, and your still saying science is wrong and continuing to use this idea of "flow". Your analogies are off the chart primitive, and expose how little you understand about how "science" describes a magnetic field.
If you need an analogy to help you understand the magnetic field around a magnet, I can provide you one that might get you headed in the right direction.
This analogy is a mechanical contraption that, although it could actually be constructed, is best left to the realms of mental imagery.
This mental analogy (or assembled mechanical contraption) has the following attributes:
1. There is no "flow"
2. Like poles repel
3. Opposite poles attract
4. Produces interesting Lissajous, phase, and standing wave visualizations
I first started using this analogy as a visualization tool decades ago. If you are able to visualize this analogy, it may help you to better understand what "science" has to say. It's a bit lengthy so let me know if you want me to take the time to post it.
Regarding your ball bearing, yes, I believe a magnetic field can be manipulated in such a way to cause a steel ball to be repelled.
Regarding your continued discussions involving induction. You seem to have forgotten some basics. If we have two coils, one fed a signal, and one receiving that signal, and place their winding axis parallel to each other, maximum induction occurs. If we rotate the receiving inductor 90 degrees (perpendicular to the transmitting coil's axis), minimum induction occurs (old timey radio stuff). The deepest null that can be achieved is when the axis of the receiving coil is at the exact center of the transmitting coil. This is basic induction. The field lines and vectors discussed regarding a PM apply in this two coil discussion as well.
If you replace your center coil with a one layer pancake coil, and position its wind axis to be parallel to the magnetic axis of the PM, there will be induction into the coil of the same polarity and magnitude all along a field line anywhere in between the magnet's poles (with magnet motion as in your 3 coil experiment). There will be no "null" or polarity change observed. If you rotate the coil's wind axis to be perpendicular to the magnetic axis, minimal induction will occur. The depth of that null is governed by the same attributes as in the basic two coil induction above.
Let me know if you (or anyone else) are interested in reading a description of the mentioned analogy. It would be a rather lengthy post so I won't waste my time if no one is interested.
Please stop thinking and saying "flow"...
PW
picowatt
QuoteSo here we are decades later, and your still saying science is wrong and continuing to use this idea of "flow". Your analogies are off the chart primitive, and expose how little you understand about how "science" describes a magnetic field.
Perhaps, however we could ask if any of your magnetic modelling allows for a working FE device?. Which then begs the question why anyone would adopt a theory knowing it cannot produce the results we want. Your modelling and theories claim a FE device is impossible do they not?.
Simply put, if your theories do not allow for a working FE device then obviously there the wrong theories, it's that simple.
On the possibility of the right theory, almost all successful FE inventors recognized the polar nature of the magnetic field. In fact, very few if any ever used the lines and loop model. These inventors took another approach which was countless hours of hands on experiments to prove the matter for themselves.
Here is an excellent read on how to build a working magnetic motor.
http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm
Note how the inventor didn't use your current modelling because the year was 1879. Let me repeat that, the year was 1879 which was 145 years ago. As well, the inventor describes many real experiments they performed to validate there theory. Very similar to the kinds of basic experiments Tinman is doing.
We also know countless other supposedly successful FE inventors were using a similar theory.
It all comes down to credibility in my opinion. Do we believe the FE inventors who seemed to be successful and made real progress or others who didn't?. Did you replicate the experiment below?, I did and Wesley Gary was correct.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.19, 17:07:14
Maybe you could tell us something we don't already know which cannot be found in any textbook?...
It appears that only a few here know what is actually in the "textbook"...
Before someone writes a new book supposedly correcting errors in the old book, should they not at least first read and understand the old book?
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.18, 03:42:46
If the core is moved closer to one of the ends of the rod magnet, the flux densities entering and exiting the coil core are no longer equal, and so the net induced voltage is non-zero.
It is the variation of the total magnetic flux penetrating a coil that causes the Faraday's induction in the coil - not the flux density variation.
It mathspeak it is ℰ=dΦ/dt not ℰ=dB/dt.
The necessity for a changing flux is well known and understood. The pertinent point I was making however was to emphasize the difference in flux density (B) through or across the coil, which ultimately impacts the resulting induced voltage when the flux is varied. This difference is present whether the configuration is in a static state, or when the flux is varying (magnet is moving relative to the coil). This difference in flux density is in fact responsible for any net induced voltage that can be produced.
If the coil is placed at the centre of a rod magnet no net voltage is induced, because the flux densities approaching and departing the coil are equal (regardless if the magnet is moving or not). As the magnet's flux passes across/thru the coil unabated and unbroken, the statement below can not be accurate (underline mine).
Quote
It is the variation of the total magnetic flux penetrating a coil that causes the Faraday's induction in the coil...
The statement is not accurate because there are 3 factors that influence the absolute net induced voltage amplitude in our configuration:
a) The Max T or BH_max (at the rod magnet's pole surface)
b) The relative rate of flux change (in our case the movement of the magnet relative to the coil)
c) The ratio of the flux densities approaching and departing the coil (in our case this is determined by the position of the coil relative to the rod magnet's length)
The important take-away from this is that no matter how strong (a), or how fast (b), if the flux densities in (c) are equal (coil positioned at centre relative to magnet), the net induced voltage will be 0.
For our centered-coil scenario, the quoted statement either implies that the magnet's flux cancels in the centered coil, or there is 0 flux in a rod magnet's centre along its length. Or is there another notion being supported?
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.19, 00:26:41
Ok, i do not understand as to how you come to a non 0 value, as if the value of the B field was not 0 within the core, then induction would take place, which would show a non 0 value of EMF produced across the coil.
If the B field vectors and flux density entering the core are equal to, but opposite of that exiting the core, at exactly the same time, then the total flux density, and the vector of that flux, is 0 at any given time. If we push on an object with a force of say 5 newtons, while also pulling on that same object with the same force of 5 newtons, then the object sees no net force applied to it.
Brad
I've attached a drawing that will hopefully help explain.
The road block to understanding this may be from the notion that there is somehow an accumulator within the coupled device, in this case a coil. i.e., the thinking seems to be that if 1 unit goes in and 1 unit comes out, then the net number of units remaining is 0. This is not the case at all, and not how flux behaves in a magnetic circuit. One approach to help is to think of magnetic flux circuits as being similar to electric circuits. In an electric circuit, electron flow (current) if monitored from a point on a wire is not seen as x number of electrons entering and exiting that point, rather it is seen as the number of electrons flowing
past that point in a given time. It is similar to the flux at the coil; it has a vector, and that vector induces two simultaneous emf's that result in a net observed emf as measured from the coil.
The diagram illustrates that flux circuits form a loop around the magnet. The flux doesn't stop or change direction at the dead centre relative to the magnet. The flux is continuous and in a loop, even if a coil is placed at the centre relative to the magnet. A certain emf is produced from the arrow approaching side, and a certain opposite polarity emf is produced from the arrow departing side. The sum of those two emf's (which happens in real time) is the remaining net emf.
Apologies for the simplified diagram, but I don't have a lot of time and I think it gets the point across as is. Note that the B field as it curls around diminishes, and probably not in a linear fashion as I have drawn. It diminishes exponentially or by square law as one gets further from the pole surface, and is the reason the induced emf is also exponential or square law.
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.18, 02:41:40
Then you should welcome these debates and discussions. If I were to invent something that appeared to defy explanation using our current scientific understanding of the field surrounding a magnet, I would want to make sure I fully understand what that current scientific understanding actually is.
Scientists and engineers have produced excellent mathematical models and subsequent simulation software to the point that they can design a magnet shape or pole assembly to produce a field of just about any desired field geometry. Many fields of science and engineering use these mathematical models and computer simulations every day to design everything from efficient motors to plasma containment.
You are up against a huge field of study that has reached a fairly high state of the art as far as being able to define and model the magnitudes and vectors anywhere in the field surrounding a magnet or magnetic assembly.
Scientists may not yet be seeing what the "field" is actually made of or in, but they have definitely worked out the math that allows accurate predictions and simulations.
I think I understand your proposed two field theory. The most difficult to reconcile aspect of your proposal is the stated null, canceled field, or polarity change that happens at the center of the field. None of the above discussed modeling indicates that a null is there.
So, if I had an invention that I believed required their to be a "null" in the field as you propose, and all of science and simulation says there is no null, I would first ask, what does the current model say about that area?. We know it is the region of the field where the field is most homogeneous. It is also where field lines are most parallel to the magnet's axis. It is the area of the field where a coil can be positioned with maximum perpendicularity to the field lines for minimum induction. Can any of these properties be shoehorned to fit into your device's theory of operation?
Have you considered having the magnetic aspects of your invention simulated with software to see if similar results can be attained before invoking non-conventional thinking?
On a side note, I cringe every time you use the word "flow" or "flowing"with regard to a conventional field line and vector diagram. All it is telling us is the polarity and magnitude at any point in the field. The vector arrows do not indicate flow. Remember too, that there can be as many field lines as you desire, depending on the required resolution of the analysis/simulation you are performing and that the field is actually in 3D.
I see this as an entirely different subject. If your invention requires the field to be non-conservative, I do not see how either the current field theory or your proposed two field theory allows for this. It would seem that some other aspect of the field would need to be invoked for this to be possible. Something that would allow additional properties to be theorized that may not be accounted for in the current simulations and understandings. There are additional theories that consider what may be driving electron motion in seeming perpetuity that deal moreso with the nature of matter and the vacuum that may allow for "apparent" non-conservation, but how deep we want to go down that rabbit hole depends moreso on the nature of your invention.
I have magnetized iron and nickel rods such that when measured using a Hall probe, a fairly large difference in strength at opposing poles is observed. As well, an almost diode type action can be observed wherein the strength of the field measured at one end of the rod is preferential to the polarity applied at the opposing end. After many tedious measurements, I believe this action can be fully explained using the conventional model.
Please do not consider our debate adversarial. A good theory should hold up to scrutiny. You should welcome the controversy as it may help you refine your theory.
Please make sure you fully understand the current model of the magnetic field, at least with regard to magnitude and polarity within the field, before stating those magnitude and polarity measurements are incorrect. That's going to be a tough hill to climb. Be sure you have fully exhausted all possible explanations that fall within the realm of our current understanding before feeling the need to invoke something new.
I am indeed rooting for you and wish you only the best in any of your endeavors. I look forward to the day you are able to disclose your invention.
PW
First up PW, i will say that your post is in no way based on any known science.
Although some of what you say fits with what is known, in the way of how magnetic fields can be used, and how they effect other objects, you simply cannot state some things as being fact.
For example--when you say i am wrong when i say flow. I am simply using the arrows that are drawn on all magnetic field depictions, which are showing some form of direction.
This is not my science, this is that of what you, and those like you are happy with. The truth is, those arrows showing some form of direction within the flux, could be just as true pointing in the opposite direction, from south to north.
In the matter of flow, you (and I) simply cannot say there is no flow, because no one knows what the field is.
There is just as much chance that there is a flow of some form of charge or matter around the PM body, and to claim otherwise would require proof that you know what the magnetic field actually is.
You, others, and science only tell and show us what the magnetic field can do, and how it seems to be.
But without knowing what the magnetic field is, you cannot demand that we all believe that there is no !flow! of some kind taking place within that field.
So to say that i am way off track, without knowing yourself all there is to know about that field, is a little rich i think.
This forum is all about finding the unknown, so i find it odd that there are those that demand others are wrong about something unknown, when those making such demands don't actually know the unknown them self.
So before telling someone they are off with the Faries, and don't know what they are talking about, perhaps ask yourself some simple questions first, like--
Do i know what the magnetic field actually is?
Knowing that i don't know what the magnetic field or force is, can i say with 100% certainty that there is no flow of some form of matter or charge.
Can i disprove some one else's theory, when i don't know all there is to know about the subject?
So, some questions for you PW
1-What do the arrows mean, that are depicted in almost every pictorial description of the magnetic field?
2-Could those arrows point in the other direction in these pictures (south to north), and still give an accurate description of the magnetic field?
3-If yes, then why the need for arrows in the depictions of the field in the first place?
4-Is this field ejected from the PM body when it is magnetized, or did the field already exist in a neutral state, and some form of organization took place within that existing field when the PM body was magnetized?
5- Can you say with 100% certainty that there is no flow of some form within the magnetic field?
6- And the big one--what is the magnetic field?
I think this is a more scientific approach.
Asking and answering questions about what we know on the subject, and then look for the unknown, by way of some theories that may fit the unknown.
We then try and find why or how those theories don't fit or work.
Brad.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.20, 00:23:29
I've attached a drawing that will hopefully help explain.
The road block to understanding this may be from the notion that there is somehow an accumulator within the coupled device, in this case a coil. i.e., the thinking seems to be that if 1 unit goes in and 1 unit comes out, then the net number of units remaining is 0. This is not the case at all, and not how flux behaves in a magnetic circuit. One approach to help is to think of magnetic flux circuits as being similar to electric circuits. In an electric circuit, electron flow (current) if monitored from a point on a wire is not seen as x number of electrons entering and exiting that point, rather it is seen as the number of electrons flowing past that point in a given time. It is similar to the flux at the coil; it has a vector, and that vector induces two simultaneous emf's that result in a net observed emf as measured from the coil.
The diagram illustrates that flux circuits form a loop around the magnet. The flux doesn't stop or change direction at the dead centre relative to the magnet. The flux is continuous and in a loop, even if a coil is placed at the centre relative to the magnet. A certain emf is produced from the arrow approaching side, and a certain opposite polarity emf is produced from the arrow departing side. The sum of those two emf's (which happens in real time) is the remaining net emf.
Apologies for the simplified diagram, but I don't have a lot of time and I think it gets the point across as is. Note that the B field as it curls around diminishes, and probably not in a linear fashion as I have drawn. It diminishes exponentially or by square law as one gets further from the pole surface, and is the reason the induced emf is also exponential or square law.
So it would be fair to say, that from the cores point of view, the flux entering the core, is equal to, but opposite that of the flux exiting the core.
That being the case, it must also be true that that is the point in the field that is neutral, from the viewpoint of the coils core.
Brad
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.20, 01:51:40
6- And the big one--what is the magnetic field?
Brad.
Hi Brad,
Here Richard Feynman gives his attempt:
Quote4. MAGNETIC FORCE? THAT'S A CHALLENGE TO EXPLAIN!
Why do magnets repel? "You're not at all disturbed by the fact that when you put your hand on the chair, it pushes you back." With magnets, "we found out by looking at it that that's the same force as, a matter of fact [...] It's the same electrical repulsions involved in keeping your finger away from the chair." The difference, Feynman notes, and the thing that makes magnets seem so unusual, is that their repulsive force acts over a distance. This is because the atoms in a magnet are all spinning in the same direction, magnifying the force such that you can feel it at a distance.
Start the top video at 14:53 to watch this lesson.
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/richard-feynman/
Click on the link and it should include the video. Only takes a few minutes to listen to that part.
And here's a paper I ran across which does an excellent job characterizing the field around a magnet showing the
B components along the outside edge.
Hope these help.
bi
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/14/2499
Quote from: floodrod on 2024.05.19, 02:50:29
If you stick ferromagnetic metal to the side of the magnet at the Blotch Wall, you are right.
But if you align 2 poles side by side to form a Blotch Wall, the situation totally changes. Not only does metal stick at the polarity divide, it is the strongest force and the metal will pull itself to the new "Blotch Wall".
Observe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqC6r0a8EaA
Maybe I am wrong, but this tells me that the Blotch Wall on the side of a magnet has no force. The poles weaken to zero before going into the opposite domain. I come to this conclusion because the test I did above clearly shows metal has no problem sticking to 2 opposite polarities. If the side Blotch Wall had magnetic strength, the bolt would stick to the dividing line like it did in the video when we use the faces..
Hi floodrod,
Thanks for sharing your experiment. It differs from the situation we've been discussing as you use two magnets magnetized through the thickness, sides attached, and the discussion concerns a bar or rod magnet magnetized through the length. See attached diagram.
I was motivated to check for myself prior to posting. I happened to have appropriate magnets on hand. The two situations behave markedly different. I did record it but am unable to attach video. Here's a still photo of my magnets.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.20, 04:57:30
Hi Brad,
Here Richard Feynman gives his attempt:
Click on the link and it should include the video. Only takes a few minutes to listen to that part.
And here's a paper I ran across which does an excellent job characterizing the field around a magnet showing the B components along the outside edge.
Hope these help.
bi
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/10/14/2499
QuoteWhy do magnets repel? "You're not at all disturbed by the fact that when you put your hand on the chair, it pushes you back." With magnets, "we found out by looking at it that that's the same force as, a matter of fact [...] It's the same electrical repulsions involved in keeping your finger away from the chair
I have watched the interview many times, and he made only one attempt to explain the magnetic field--
QuoteIt's the same electrical repulsions involved in keeping your finger away from the chair
So, are you happy with his explanation? -electrical repulsions involved.
How do you get an electrical repulsion between two bodies?
How do you get an electrical attraction between two bodies?
What must the charges be between the two bodies for each effect?
Throughout the video, he made no further attempt to explain the magnetic force or field, and that is because he cannot.
It does not bother me that i can push on a chair, and the chair pushes back, as that is just a pressure between two physical objects that are in contact with each other, both of which we know what those two objects are made of.
I want to deviate a little here, but this deviation is relative to the subject at hand.
Do you believe that every force has an equal and opposite force ?
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.20, 02:25:24
So it would be fair to say, that from the cores point of view, the flux entering the core, is equal to, but opposite that of the flux exiting the core.
That being the case, it must also be true that that is the point in the field that is neutral, from the viewpoint of the coils core.
Brad
From the core's point of view there is a flux vector "passing by/thru" it, and that vector induces equal but opposing voltages in the coil (assuming a centered coil).
It is confusing and not constructive to use the word "neutral" to describe anything going on in this process. The field itself is never "neutral" and it doesn't have a neutral zone per se, and referring to a net induced voltage as "neutral" would also be poor terminology in this case. There is a position the coil can be placed which results in a net 0 induced voltage, but calling that a "neutral" position only invites confusion and conjures up images of "Bloch walls" and field gaps etc. I would advise we stay clear of this kind of ambiguous terminology as it only serves to muddy the waters and create lengthy threads and lost hours.
With reference to each other, how would you describe the flux at each pole of the magnet?
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.20, 01:51:40
First up PW, i will say that your post is in no way based on any known science.
Exactly which post are you referring to? I do not recall discussing anything not based on known science. I can't even begin to suggest any deeper theoretical contemplations while we argue over the already known characterizations of the magnetic field. it's like trying to discuss how a lightbulb emits light while arguing about the dimensions of its glass globe.
Quote
Can i disprove some one else's theory, when i don't know all there is to know about the subject?
This is why it important to understand what modern science has to say about the magnetic field before trying to prove modern science wrong.
Quote
So, some questions for you PW
1-What do the arrows mean, that are depicted in almost every pictorial description of the magnetic field?
The arrows are directional vectors. In effect, the arrows tell you which way to point your right thumb if you want to know which way an electron will be deflected when passing a particular point in the field.
Quote
2-Could those arrows point in the other direction in these pictures (south to north), and still give an accurate description of the magnetic field?
Yes, they could. We could rewrite the right hand rule to instead be the "left hand rule" and all would be well. We could reverse all convention I suppose, stating electrons are positive, protons are negative, north is south, etc. Often, a label is just a label. However, many labeling conventions are rooted in the past and have, over time, evolved with science. It would, however, be difficult to discuss anything if everyone used different definitions and conventions.
Quote
3-If yes, then why the need for arrows in the depictions of the field in the first place?
The arrows tell us a "polarity' of sorts, which in the case of a magnetic field, tells us which way charged particles are deflected. If a magnet is positioned as in your 3 coil experiment, and we shoot two streams of electrons up from the bottom of the page so one stream passes by the N pole and the second stream passes by the S pole, both electron streams will be deflected the same direction, into the screen, as they pass the magnet's poles. That directional information is provided by the vectors.
Quote
4-Is this field ejected from the PM body when it is magnetized, or did the field already exist in a neutral state, and some form of organization took place within that existing field when the PM body was magnetized?
The answer to both questions is yes...
Quote
5- Can you say with 100% certainty that there is no flow of some form within the magnetic field?
I can say with 100% certainty that the vector arrows do not indicate flow. As to whether or not there is some sort of flow in the field, or rather, whether the field is truly static or not, would be an interesting conversation, if we weren't arguing about what we already know regarding the magnetic field.
Quote
6- And the big one--what is the magnetic field?
This is what we should be discussing. Arguing against what we already know about a magnet and its field after hundreds of years of experimentation, measurement, and mathematical modeling, is rather pointless. We should be taking advantage of all the hard work already performed to characterize the magnetic field for us and contemplate theories that explain, not argue against, that characterization.
Science has a lot of answers, the math works well enough to allow reduction to practice in many different fields. However, science and I diverged somewhat 6 decades ago, in that I did not believe science was seeing the big picture. With the more recent babble about dark energy and dark matter, it appears that divergence may be slowly coming back together.
Given that you are not amazed, or ponder why, that you do not fall through a chair when you sit down, as you stated in a later post, is surprising to me.
My personal belief?
"That which is", and "that which is not", are same...
PW
Hi Brad,
QuoteDo you believe that every force has an equal and opposite force ?
Yes.
I accept as true Newton's Law, Gauss's Law, Ohm's Law, Ampere's Law, and pretty much the body of scientific knowledge as taught to me long ago. Using these principles over a long career in the field, applying them daily, I've witnessed no exceptions. For my humble self, I pushed some limits. I choose to rely on these and reject the theories put forth by the likes of Ken Wheeler, Albert Roy and Walter Rawls, Wesley W. Gary, and a few others referred to on this thread thread.
I've expressed my opinions several times here. Such as:
From reply #15
There are some interpretations, theories, beliefs, or 'ways of looking at things' which are either right or wrong.
That is my way of looking at it.
With the existing conventional scientific theories and knowledge base, engineers have designed electric machinery which powers civilization as we know it. All the electric motors and generators which operate extremely efficiently and whose magnetic characteristics are so well understood that they can be designed from scratch by those skilled engineers, ...
_______
From reply #23
"What is that field actually made up of?"
What is gravity, or gravitational field made up of? I don't know. But that lack of the true nature doesn't prevent detailed characterization of the phenomenon and intelligent applications. No doubt we could do better if we knew the answer to your question. And I'm sure many smart people strive to find the answer for us.
_________
I accept the fact that I don't know everything. Nobody does. I don't have to personally see it with my own eyes to know it. Call it faith. Works for me. Good luck with your endeavor.
bi
Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4661.msg112274#msg112274 date=1716211632
QuoteWhat is gravity, or gravitational field made up of? I don't know. But that lack of the true nature doesn't prevent detailed characterization of the phenomenon and intelligent applications. No doubt we could do better if we knew the answer to your question. And I'm sure many smart people strive to find the answer for us.
So, this would be the same as- i know i can drive a car down the road, but have no idea as to how the car is actually propelled down the road.
Thankfully, some people took the time to learn exactly how that car is propelled down the road, which led to vast improvements in that propelling system, right down to the liquid energy it self.
(Do you believe that every force has an equal and opposite force ?)
QuoteYes.
I accept as true Newton's Law, Gauss's Law, Ohm's Law, Ampere's Law, and pretty much the body of scientific knowledge as taught to me long ago. Using these principles over a long career in the field, applying them daily, I've witnessed no exceptions. For my humble self, I pushed some limits. I choose to rely on these and reject the theories put forth by the likes of Ken Wheeler, Albert Roy and Walter Rawls, Wesley W. Gary, and a few others referred to on this thread thread.
That is simply not the case.
If every force had an equal and opposite force, we could never accelerate a mass, which we know we can.
Most fail to stand back, and look at the big picture, and look only at a single point in applied forces.
If the total reacting forces of a mass are equal to, and opposite of the acting forces(applied forces), then that mass would not accelerate.
In order for a mass to accelerate, the total applied forces must be greater than the total reacting forces of that mass.
Only the total energy applied is equal to the total energy stored and dissipated.
I will give you a simple example below.
Here we have a man pushing on a car, where as the applied force is just under that required to get the car moving.
In the top pic, the car is not moving, and the reacting forces A and C, are equal to and opposite of the acting forces B and D
In the second pic, the man increases force D, which results in the same increase of forces A and B
So now forces A, B, and D are equal, but force C remains close to the same-the rolling resistance force of the wheels on the road.
The car is now being accelerated forward, due to the total of forces B and D being greater than the total of the reacting forces of A and C.
But energy is still being conserved, where some of the energy being applied is used to overcome that which reaction force C applied (dissipated energy), and some of that applied energy is being stored as kinetic energy in the accelerating mass (the car).
So, all energy applied to the car is equal to all energy dissipated by the car through friction and heat, and energy stored as kinetic energy.
But the sum total of acting forces (applied forces), must be greater than that of the reacting forces, in order for that car to be accelerated.
The stored kinetic energy has to come from somewhere, and energy will only flow from a high state to a lower state (the second law of thermodynamics), which also tells us that the cars total sum of reacting forces is lower than the acting forces placed upon it once the car began to accelerate.
I think, like most, you look at only forces A and B, in which you would be correct--the reacting force is equal to and opposite of that of the acting force.
But when you take into account the total forces, which include forces C and D, then the sum total of forces is never equal and opposite when a mass is being accelerated.
Work done against friction: W = Ff x. Energy is the quantity that can be used to perform work.
So if the car is pushing back just as hard as the man is pushing the car, then the car is doing just as much work on the man, as the man is doing on the car, over the same distance.
This means the sum total of energy applied to the car by the man, is the exact same amount of energy that is applied to the man, by the car.
You then need to explain as to where the stored kinetic energy came from, that is now stored in the moving car.
The kinetic energy that is building up in the car as it accelerates, comes from the imbalance of applied forces over distance-the imbalance of work done between the man and the car.
So, would not you agree, in order for a mass to be accelerated, such as the car, the acting force (the applied force) must be greater than the reacting force
Brad
Quoteauthor=picowatt link=topic=4661.msg112273#msg112273 date=1716209883
QuoteExactly which post are you referring to? I do not recall discussing anything not based on known science. I can't even begin to suggest any deeper theoretical contemplations while we argue over the already known characterizations of the magnetic field. it's like trying to discuss how a lightbulb emits light while arguing about the dimensions of its glass globe.
I am referring to your post-post 172
Quote:
Quote( you really need to slap yourself silly every time you use the word flow, or any of its derivatives, when contemplating a magnetic field. Only you can be honest with yourself, but having read your posts, it seems to me that at some point in your life you saw a drawing of a magnet with field lines and vectors and took that drawing to mean something was "flowing" out of the N pole and returning back into the magnet at the S pole.)
How exactly can you prove that there is no energy or matter flowing between the poles, when you don't actually know what the magnetic field is?
Where in any science text books, is there absolute proof that nothing is flowing between the poles? How exactly have you come to the conclusion that nothing is flowing between the poles--what science are you using to verify this claim?
QuoteThis is why it important to understand what modern science has to say about the magnetic field before trying to prove modern science wrong.
The arrows are directional vectors. In effect, the arrows tell you which way to point your right thumb if you want to know which way an electron will be deflected when passing a particular point in the field.
This is not scientific proof that there is not some form of energy or matter flowing between the poles.
QuoteThe arrows tell us a "polarity' of sorts, which in the case of a magnetic field, tells us which way charged particles are deflected. If a magnet is positioned as in your 3 coil experiment, and we shoot two streams of electrons up from the bottom of the page so one stream passes by the N pole and the second stream passes by the S pole, both electron streams will be deflected the same direction, into the screen, as they pass the magnet's poles. That directional information is provided by the vectors.
This offers nothing in relation to what is deflecting the electrons in the beam.
These electrons must be being deflected by some form of matter or charge.
Electrons having a negative charge, are repelled by other negative charges, and attracted to positive charges.
Once again, this leans toward the magnetic field being some form of charge, and charge flows from a higher state of energy/charge, to a lower state of energy/charge.
QuoteI can say with 100% certainty that the vector arrows do not indicate flow. As to whether or not there is some sort of flow in the field, or rather, whether the field is truly static or not, would be an interesting conversation, if we weren't arguing about what we already know regarding the magnetic field.
So show me the science that confirms your claim.
If there is a flow of some kind, it would be much as the vector arrows show, from one end of the field, to the other.
Once again, i find it hard to believe you can make such a claim, when no one has any idea what the field actually is.
You simply cannot make such a claim until such time as we fully understand what exactly it is that applies these invisible forces.
I am not arguing about what we already know about the field-which is very little. I am proposing a theory as to what the field could be.
QuoteThis is what we should be discussing. Arguing against what we already know about a magnet and its field after hundreds of years of experimentation, measurement, and mathematical modeling, is rather pointless. We should be taking advantage of all the hard work already performed to characterize the magnetic field for us and contemplate theories that explain, not argue against, that characterization.
I am not interested in what we already know. I am interested in moving forward, and theorizing on what the field could be.
These hundreds of years of experimentation, measurement, and mathematical modeling has only taught us how to use the magnetic field. It tells us nothing about what the magnetic field is.
Should we just end our research into what the field actually is? Would we not be able to extend the use of the magnetic field if we knew what it was?
QuoteScience has a lot of answers, the math works well enough to allow reduction to practice in many different fields. However, science and I diverged somewhat 6 decades ago, in that I did not believe science was seeing the big picture. With the more recent babble about dark energy and dark matter, it appears that divergence may be slowly coming back together.
On this we agree, and i feel the same way.
As they seek this dark energy/matter, i seek to find out what the magnetic field is.
QuoteGiven that you are not amazed, or ponder why, that you do not fall through a chair when you sit down, as you stated in a later post, is surprising to me
Why would something so simple, like sitting on a wooden chair, interest me?, when it is well known as to why the chair can hold me up.
What interests me, is an invisible force that can hold me up, just as the physical chair does.
The atoms that make up the timber in the chair, all want to stick together, thus giving the chairs structure strength to hold me up against the gravitational pull.
Now, i want to know the structure of this invisible force, that can also hold me up in the air, against the pull of gravity.
There is simply no point in getting excited over the already well explained forces of atoms attraction or binding to each other.
What would you be more intrigued by--a man standing on a chair, or a man standing on thin air, being held up by this invisible force field?
Brad
Brad,
I understand that F = m × a.
bi
edit: that is the missing part of your A, B, C, D car pushing example.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.20, 16:00:39
I understand that F = m × a.
bi
edit: that is the missing part of your A, B, C, D car pushing example.
There is nothing missing in the example.
The acceleration of a mass depends on unequal forces.
If the forces are equal and opposite, no acceleration can take place.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.20, 15:58:17
I am referring to your post-post 172
Quote: How exactly can you prove that there is no energy or matter flowing between the poles, when you don't actually know what the magnetic field is?
I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. I have stated (repeatedly) that the vector arrows do not indicate flow. They never have. Some naive grade school teacher might have given you that impression, but the arrows are just directional vectors.
Quote
Where in any science text books, is there absolute proof that nothing is flowing between the poles? How exactly have you come to the conclusion that nothing is flowing between the poles--what science are you using to verify this claim?
Whether the field is actually static or not would be an interesting discussion. Your visualization seems to be rather invested in this idea of flow, which is most likely rooted in your misunderstanding that field vectors indicate flow.
Quote
This is not scientific proof that there is not some form of energy or matter flowing between the poles.
This offers nothing in relation to what is deflecting the electrons in the beam.
These electrons must be being deflected by some form of matter or charge.
Electrons having a negative charge, are repelled by other negative charges, and attracted to positive charges.
Once again, this leans toward the magnetic field being some form of charge, and charge flows from a higher state of energy/charge, to a lower state of energy/charge.
Brad, I'd love to discuss some of these topics. I have repeatedly stated that vector arrows do not indicate flow. They offer no proof one way or another as to whether the field is static or not. I have never said they did. Again, the vectors do not indicate flow, only a direction or polarity determined by how particles react to the field.
Quote
So show me the science that confirms your claim.
If there is a flow of some kind, it would be much as the vector arrows show, from one end of the field, to the other.
Once again, i find it hard to believe you can make such a claim, when no one has any idea what the field actually is.
You simply cannot make such a claim until such time as we fully understand what exactly it is that applies these invisible forces.
I am not arguing about what we already know about the field-which is very little. I am proposing a theory as to what the field could be.
What claim have I made? That vector arrows do not indicate flow? Yes, that I do indeed claim.
You act as if you believe science is wrong because the "flow" indicated in their image of the field with vector arrows can't possibly be right, when science never said those arrows meant "flow" at all. Could there be some kind of "flow", perhaps, but I moreso suspect it to be a bunch of (mostly) standing waves.
Quote
I am not interested in what we already know.
By we, do you mean yourself? If by we, you mean science in general, how can you not be interested in what science has to say? How do you know if your gizmo violates our current understanding without knowing what that understanding is? How do you know something can't be explained by science without knowing the science?
Quote
I am interested in moving forward, and theorizing on what the field could be.
These hundreds of years of experimentation, measurement, and mathematical modeling has only taught us how to use the magnetic field. It tells us nothing about what the magnetic field is.
I too would love to move forward. But you seem to want to brush aside all that experimentation, measurement, and mathematical modeling as if it is all incorrect.
Quote
Should we just end our research into what the field actually is? Would we not be able to extend the use of the magnetic field if we knew what it was?
Of course we should continue research. If we could stop doubting all the data that already exists and move on, that would be great. But you keep going on about a "null", or not a "null", or a polarity reversal or something that happens to the field at the center of a magnet. At this point I have no idea what you are saying.
What measureable quantity or property is it that you are saying occurs at the equator of a magnet?
Quote
On this we agree, and i feel the same way.
As they seek this dark energy/matter, i seek to find out what the magnetic field is.
Why would something so simple, like sitting on a wooden chair, interest me?, when it is well known as to why the chair can hold me up.
What interests me, is an invisible force that can hold me up, just as the physical chair does.
The atoms that make up the timber in the chair, all want to stick together, thus giving the chairs structure strength to hold me up against the gravitational pull.
Now, i want to know the structure of this invisible force, that can also hold me up in the air, against the pull of gravity.
There is simply no point in getting excited over the already well explained forces of atoms attraction or binding to each other.
What would you be more intrigued by--a man standing on a chair, or a man standing on thin air, being held up by this invisible force field?
Yet, in many ways, to know the chair is to know the magnet...
PW
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.20, 16:16:47
There is nothing missing in the example.
The acceleration of a mass depends on unequal forces.
If the forces are equal and opposite, no acceleration can take place.
Brad
Brad,
Using your cartoon example sticking in numbers:
Forces needed to overcome breakaway friction (stiction) = C = 6 Newtons.
Man pushes with force B = 6N.
Ground exerts force on man D = 6N.
Car exerts force on man A = 6N.
No motion. All forces equal and opposite. Equilibrium.
All of a sudden, man increases to 9N. Now B' = 9N.
And D' = 9N. B' = D', equal and opposite.
Car pushes back on man with 9N, A'.
Now equilibrium is breached and C no longer applies due to motion. To balance equal and opposite force equation,
A' = C' + W + F = 9N where:
C' = rolling friction = 5N
W = windage = O
F = m × a = 4N.
A bit later,
C' = rolling friction = 5N
W = windage = 1N
F = m × a = 3N.
As speed increases, W increases from 1 to 4N, at which time equilibrium is again obtained and F = 0 and a = O. Again equal and opposite forces as there were at each instant during the dynamic period.
bi
*Flat surface assumed and windage is same as aerodynamic drag force.
Brad,
Assuming no gravitational influence (level road or tracks), and that your car had ideal wheels and bearings, that is, no friction or rolling resistance, you would only need to apply the force necessary to accelerate the mass of the car to the desired speed. After that, the car will continue at that speed forever with no additional force required (inertia...). With no losses, force is only required to accelerate or decelerate a mass.
If the tires and bearings have rolling resistance, stiction, or flat spots from sitting, additional force will be required to overcome these losses beyond that required to accelerate the mass. However, once the desired speed is achieved, to maintain that speed only requires application of a force equal to all the losses (rolling resistance, air, etc).
Perhaps I don't understand your quandary...
PW
Tinman
QuoteI am not interested in what we already know. I am interested in moving forward, and theorizing on what the field could be.
These hundreds of years of experimentation, measurement, and mathematical modeling has only taught us how to use the magnetic field. It tells us nothing about what the magnetic field is.
Should we just end our research into what the field actually is? Would we not be able to extend the use of the magnetic field if we knew what it was
I found looking into alternate theories can help but doing well thought out experiments is always the way to make real progress.
My experiments are always methodical and attempt to answer a specific question. For example, when doing homopolar generator experiments I wondered whether the electron path across a conductive disk with no magnets is straight. Many claim energy always moves in straight lines between two points but did anyone bother to check there premise?. So I built my own sensor arrays so I could actually track the path of the electron current across a 1" thick aluminum plate to within 0.5 mm. In fact, the electron current never follows a straight line and bends or deflects a great deal. So now I know energy and electron currents do not always follow straight lines and others claims are false. I learned something new I can apply.
There is a specific mental process involved which helps us move forward faster. So when considering an experiment to track an electron current across a disk my first concern was 1)a new kind of sensor or experiment and 2)learning something new. It cannot be the same repetition everyone else has done countless times before it must be something new. It's not that difficult and we consider what everyone else would think or do and then
we do not do that.
You see most of science is about everyone doing the same things and getting the same results which is expected. Invention is about doing something nobody ever thought of and hoping something turns out different so we can learn from it.
AC
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.20, 17:03:15
As speed increases, W increases from 1 to 4N, at which time equilibrium is again obtained and F = 0 and a = O. Again equal and opposite forces as there were at each instant during the dynamic period.
bi
*Flat surface assumed and windage is same as aerodynamic drag force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUqrw_MRXPA&pp=ygUudmVydCBkaWRlciB2ZXJpdGFzaXVtINC_0YDQvtGC0LjQsiDQstC10YLRgNCwIA%3D%3D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUqrw_MRXPA&pp=ygUudmVydCBkaWRlciB2ZXJpdGFzaXVtINC_0YDQvtGC0LjQsiDQstC10YLRgNCwIA%3D%3D)
And how this vehicle move faster?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.19, 21:29:19
The statement is not accurate because there are 3 factors that influence the absolute net induced voltage amplitude in our configuration:
It is very accurate because this equation does not care how the magnetic flux which penetrates the coil is generated and what causes it to change.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.19, 21:29:19
a) The Max T or BH_max (at the rod magnet's pole surface)
It is irrelevant to Faraday's induction how the flux is generated.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.19, 21:29:19
b) The relative rate of flux change (in our case the movement of the magnet relative to the coil)
That is described by the formula ℰ=dΦ/dt. How the change is accomplished is not important to Faraday's induction.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.19, 21:29:19
c) The ratio of the flux densities approaching and departing the coil (in our case this is determined by the position of the coil relative to the rod magnet's length)
Flux densities are irrelevant to Faraday's induction. Only the rate of change in the total flux is. I already had a discussion about this with the late MarkE on this forum - he lost.
Quote from: verpies on 2024.05.20, 22:07:03
It is irrelevant to Faraday's induction how the flux is generated.
My point was that the strength of the magnetic field matters. Whether the magnetic field is generated by a PM or an energized coil matters not (but that goes without saying).
Quote
That is described by the formula ℰ=dΦ/dt. How the change is accomplished is not important to Faraday's induction.
Kindly indicate how my statement b) challenges this?
Quote
Flux densities are irrelevant to Faraday's induction. Only the rate of change in the total flux is.
With the underlined and our configuration in mind then, please explain why the induced voltage is much higher at a magnet's (or coil's) pole vs. at the middle (or near middle) of the magnet (or coil) relative to its length.
Quote
I already had a discussion about this with the late MarkE on this forum - he lost.
Please provide a link to said discussion. Thanks.
Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.20, 17:41:20
Brad,
Assuming no gravitational influence (level road or tracks), and that your car had ideal wheels and bearings, that is, no friction or rolling resistance, you would only need to apply the force necessary to accelerate the mass of the car to the desired speed. After that, the car will continue at that speed forever with no additional force required (inertia...). With no losses, force is only required to accelerate or decelerate a mass.
If the tires and bearings have rolling resistance, stiction, or flat spots from sitting, additional force will be required to overcome these losses beyond that required to accelerate the mass. However, once the desired speed is achieved, to maintain that speed only requires application of a force equal to all the losses (rolling resistance, air, etc).
Perhaps I don't understand your quandary...
PW
My point is, as long as a mass continues to accelerate, the forces are not equal.
In my real life example, the applied force by the man needs to exceed that of the resistive forces of the car, in order for the car to accelerate.
Brad
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.20, 17:03:15
Brad,
Using your cartoon example sticking in numbers:
Forces needed to overcome breakaway friction (stiction) = C = 6 Newtons.
Man pushes with force B = 6N.
Ground exerts force on man D = 6N.
Car exerts force on man A = 6N.
No motion. All forces equal and opposite. Equilibrium.
All of a sudden, man increases to 9N. Now B' = 9N.
And D' = 9N. B' = D', equal and opposite.
Car pushes back on man with 9N, A'.
Now equilibrium is breached and C no longer applies due to motion. To balance equal and opposite force equation,
A' = C' + W + F = 9N where:
C' = rolling friction = 5N
W = windage = O
F = m × a = 4N.
A bit later,
C' = rolling friction = 5N
W = windage = 1N
F = m × a = 3N.
As speed increases, W increases from 1 to 4N, at which time equilibrium is again obtained and F = 0 and a = O. Again equal and opposite forces as there were at each instant during the dynamic period.
bi
*Flat surface assumed and windage is same as aerodynamic drag force.
The man pushing the car, is the source of the energy that will be stored within the car, in the form of kinetic energy.
Energy can only flow from a high state, to a lower state, or a higher potential, to a lower potential.
If all forces were equal and opposite during acceleration, then no energy could be transferred from the man to the car.
The imbalance of forces over distance during acceleration, is how the energy is transferred from the man, to the car.
The force being applied by the man to the car, must be greater than the opposing forces of the car upon the man, in order for the car to accelerate.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.21, 00:47:55
The man pushing the car, is the source of the energy that will be stored within the car, in the form of kinetic energy.
Energy can only flow from a high state, to a lower state, or a higher potential, to a lower potential.
If all forces were equal and opposite during acceleration, then no energy could be transferred from the man to the car.
The imbalance of forces over distance during acceleration, is how the energy is transferred from the man, to the car.
The force being applied by the man to the car, must be greater than the opposing forces of the car upon the man, in order for the car to accelerate.
Brad
Hi Brad,
The change in kinetic energy of the mass is equal to the work done on the system during the acceleration period minus the losses. Everything is balanced, both forces and energy.
bi
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.21, 00:30:57
My point is, as long as a mass continues to accelerate, the forces are not equal.
In my real life example, the applied force by the man needs to exceed that of the resistive forces of the car, in order for the car to accelerate.
Brad
Brad,
And the difference between the applied force and resistive force is mass times acceleration, a force. The sum of all the forces equal zero. That's what I tried to show in my numerical example.
Sorry to butt in PW.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.20, 17:03:15
Brad,
Using your cartoon example sticking in numbers:
Forces needed to overcome breakaway friction (stiction) = C = 6 Newtons.
Man pushes with force B = 6N.
Ground exerts force on man D = 6N.
Car exerts force on man A = 6N.
No motion. All forces equal and opposite. Equilibrium.
All of a sudden, man increases to 9N. Now B' = 9N.
And D' = 9N. B' = D', equal and opposite.
Car pushes back on man with 9N, A'.
Now equilibrium is breached and C no longer applies due to motion. To balance equal and opposite force equation,
A' = C' + W + F = 9N where:
C' = rolling friction = 5N
W = windage = O
F = m × a = 4N.
A bit later,
C' = rolling friction = 5N
W = windage = 1N
F = m × a = 3N.
As speed increases, W increases from 1 to 4N, at which time equilibrium is again obtained and F = 0 and a = O. Again equal and opposite forces as there were at each instant during the dynamic period.
bi
*Flat surface assumed and windage is same as aerodynamic drag force.
Maybe chatGPT can explain it better than me-->
Newton's Second Law of Motion: According to Newton's second law, 𝐹=𝑚𝑎. F=ma, where F is the net force applied to an object, m is the mass of the object, and a is its acceleration. For the car to accelerate, there must be a net force acting on it in the direction of acceleration.
Resistive Forces: The car experiences several resistive forces that oppose its motion:
Friction: The force between the car's tires and the ground.
Air Resistance: The force of air pushing against the car as it moves.
Mechanical Resistance: Any internal resistance in the car's components, such as in the bearings or drivetrain.
Net Force: The net force on the car is the difference between the force applied by the man and the sum of all resistive forces. Mathematically, it can be expressed as :𝐹 net=𝐹 applied−𝐹 resistive. F
resistive is the total of all opposing forces
Acceleration: For the car to accelerate, 𝐹 net must be greater than zero.
If the applied force is greater than the resistive forces, the car will experience a net force in the direction of the push, resulting in acceleration.
Therefore, the man must push with a force that exceeds the total resistive forces in order for the car to accelerate. If his force is equal to the resistive forces, the car will move at a constant speed (assuming it was already in motion). If his force is less than the resistive forces, the car will either remain stationary or decelerate if it was initially moving.
So, as i stated, the applied force must be greater than the opposing force, in order for the car to accelerate.
This imbalance of force over distance (work done), is converted into the stored kinetic energy within the car.
So, when a mass is being accelerated, the forces are opposite, but they are not equal.
Brad
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.21, 01:04:35
Hi Brad,
The change in kinetic energy of the mass is equal to the work done on the system during the acceleration period minus the losses. Everything is balanced, both forces and energy.
bi
We are talking about forces.
Kinetic energy is not a force. It is stored energy.
I already stated that all energy applied, is equal to all energy dissipated and stored.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.21, 01:14:00
Maybe chatGPT can explain it better than me-->
Newton's Second Law of Motion: According to Newton's second law, 𝐹=𝑚𝑎. F=ma, where F is the net force applied to an object, m is the mass of the object, and a is its acceleration. For the car to accelerate, there must be a net force acting on it in the direction of acceleration.
Resistive Forces: The car experiences several resistive forces that oppose its motion:
Friction: The force between the car's tires and the ground.
Air Resistance: The force of air pushing against the car as it moves.
Mechanical Resistance: Any internal resistance in the car's components, such as in the bearings or drivetrain.
Net Force: The net force on the car is the difference between the force applied by the man and the sum of all resistive forces. Mathematically, it can be expressed as :𝐹 net=𝐹 applied−𝐹 resistive. F
resistive is the total of all opposing forces
Acceleration: For the car to accelerate, 𝐹 net must be greater than zero.
If the applied force is greater than the resistive forces, the car will experience a net force in the direction of the push, resulting in acceleration.
Therefore, the man must push with a force that exceeds the total resistive forces in order for the car to accelerate. If his force is equal to the resistive forces, the car will move at a constant speed (assuming it was already in motion). If his force is less than the resistive forces, the car will either remain stationary or decelerate if it was initially moving.
So, as i stated, the applied force must be greater than the opposing force, in order for the car to accelerate.
This imbalance of force over distance (work done), is converted into the stored kinetic energy within the car.
So, when a mass is being accelerated, the forces are opposite, but they are not equal.
Brad
Brad,
So F = ma. ma = F, a Force. Right?
My chatgpt gives me:
QuoteWhen you push an object with a force of X newtons, the object does indeed exert a force back on you due to Newton's Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that the object pushes back on you with a force of X newtons.
However, the concept of inertia itself is a bit different. Inertia is the property of an object to resist changes in its state of motion. It is directly related to the mass of the object. When you apply a force to an object, its inertia resists this force, but this resistance is not a force in the same sense as the applied force or the reaction force. Instead, inertia manifests as a resistance to acceleration.
Inertia is the tendency of the object to resist changes in its motion. It is a property of the object's mass.
The larger the mass, the greater the inertia, and the more force is required to change its motion (i.e., to accelerate it).
Looks to me like forces are balanced even during acceleration. Just a lot of double talk along the way.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.21, 03:02:34
Brad,
So F = ma. ma = F, a Force. Right?
My chatgpt gives me:
Looks to me like forces are balanced even during acceleration. Just a lot of double talk along the way.
bi
And yet the second law clearly states that there must be a net force in the direction of acceleration.
It is this net force that result in the build up of kinetic energy, where a transformation of the net force in the direction of acceleration is converted into kinetic energy.
Are you confusing force with energy? The two are related, but not one in the same.
Then when a force is applied to the moving mass, so as to oppose it's motion, that kinetic energy is then converted back into a force, where that value is equal to the net force value that accelerated that mass in the first place.
As i said, during acceleration, there needs to be a net force in order to accelerate a mass.
Brad
Brad.
Brad,
You asked me.
QuoteDo you believe that every force has an equal and opposite force ?
I said yes.
You said.
QuoteThat is simply not the case.
I see force as an action. Logic tells me you contradict Newton using an interpretation of his second to refute his third law of motion.
Sorry but I will no longer argue this.
bi
QuoteNASA (.gov)
https://www1.grc.nasa.gov › newt...
Newton's Laws of Motion
Aug 7, 2023 — His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.21, 04:12:41
Brad,
You asked me.
I said yes.
You said.
I see force as an action. Logic tells me you contradict Newton using an interpretation of his second to refute his third law of motion.
Sorry but I will no longer argue this.
bi
There is no interpretation--it is exact.
Please read
Quote: According to Newton, an object will only accelerate if there is a net or unbalanced force acting upon it. The presence of an unbalanced force will accelerate an object - changing its speed, its direction, or both its speed and direction.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law#:~:text=According%20to%20Newton%2C%20an%20object,both%20its%20speed%20and%20direction.
The third law is in relation to the contact point of the acting force, and the reacting force-between the car and the man
The second law is in relation of the sum total of all forces involved in the acceleration of a mass-in this case, the car, where, when all forces are summed up, there must be a net force in the direction of acceleration.
As i stated earlier, this net force is converted into kinetic energy. The work-energy principle states that the work done by the net force on an object, results in a change in the object's kinetic energy. This principle can be mathematically expressed as: W=ΔK
As i said, you need to stand back and look at the bigger picture, not just a single point.
The 3rd law, as you see it, and in relation to the topic title, dictates that an all magnet motor will not work, due to every action having an equal and opposite reaction.
But the second law states that, when accelerating a mass (such as a rotor/flywheel), every action does not have an equal and opposite reaction, when the sum total of forces over distance are taken into account-- (if we are to use your claim that you see forces as actions), as the net force on the accelerating mass is converted into kinetic energy.
So now, how do we get an imbalance of all forces in an all magnet motor, such as we have in the man pushing the car example (newtons second law), to accelerate a mass?, like a rotor O0
Brad
I say there are many types of actions-reactions.
Sometimes the itch gets too strong to stay silent.
Let me chime in for a second and say this. Newtons third law is NOT wrong, in fact it is the reason why any so called free energy motor would work.
However what is wrong is assuming that angular mass and linear mass are the same thing. They are not, one pertains to circular motion and the other to linear motion. Imo the term "moment of inertia" was chosen badly. A better term would be the angular mass of a body. Therefore any body ALWAYS has two masses, its angular mass and its linear mass. This is accounted for in rigid body physics simulation too or else the simulation would have no rotation with linear mass only.
HOWEVER this does not explain why any free energy motor works either. We just made a distinction between two sorts of "masses". It is what brings these two completely separate types of mass together and forces them to interact exchanging energy, the world calls it:
FRICTION
Which surprise, surprise also has two types. Rolling and sliding friction. If you want to how any OU motor works, study this force. Study moment of inertia, Study rigid body dynamics. And finally try to think on how this circular (often wrongly called "rotational kinetic energy" but should be corrected to "potential energy") energy can be exchanged for linear (kinetic) energy and vice versa and you might find "OU".
However I just call it electromagnetism
Quote from: broli on 2024.05.21, 08:58:33
Let me chime in for a second and say this. Newtons third law is NOT wrong, ....
Thank you.
bi
Broli
QuoteHowever what is wrong is assuming that angular mass and linear mass are the same thing. They are not, one pertains to circular motion and the other to linear motion. Imo the term "moment of inertia" was chosen badly. A better term would be the angular mass of a body. Therefore any body ALWAYS has two masses, its angular mass and its linear mass. This is accounted for in rigid body physics simulation too or else the simulation would have no rotation with linear mass only.
This sounds really confusing to me.
There are not two kinds of masses, there is one kind of mass which undergoes different kinds of motions. With linear motion all the mass is moving at the same velocity. Where with angular motion the velocity increases the further away the mass is from the point of rotation. In effect, with angular motion the momentum or (mass-velocity) increases the further we are away from the point of rotation. This is why we place most of the mass of a flywheel at the perimeter. The inside mass does almost nothing and the majority of the kinetic energy or momentum is stored at the rim.
QuoteWhich surprise, surprise also has two types. Rolling and sliding friction. If you want to how any OU motor works, study this force. Study moment of inertia, Study rigid body dynamics. And finally try to think on how this circular (often wrongly called "rotational kinetic energy" but should be corrected to "potential energy") energy can be exchanged for linear (kinetic) energy and vice versa and you might find "OU".
I think part of the confusion relates to how mass and inertia are defined. In physics there is really no such thing as "mass" because mass is represented by an objects resistance to changes in motion which is actually inertia. They also defined inertia as a property of mass. Do you see the problem?, in effect there claiming mass (inertia) is a property of mass. Obviously mass cannot be a property of mass in itself that is absurd.
They use circular reasoning because once again nobody seems to have a clue what inertia is. You see, inertia is defined as an objects resistance to changes in motion but they have no idea where this "resistance" comes from. So they just haphazardly lumped mass and inertia together as one hoping nobody was smart enough to notice.
AC
When I think of angular velocity I think of a merry go round. The person at the center feels very little if any outward force but as we get further from the center it get harder to hold on because the velocity thus forces increase. We could also note the kid who inevitably gets thrown off is always at the perimeter and tumbles off in a straight line. The outward acting force we feel is our body wanting to move in a straight line but constrained to move in a circle.
In Engineering we think of a rotating mass as more like a rotating onion. Every layer rotates at the same RPM however each layer has a different velocity and momentum (mass-velocity) because of it's distance from the center. So to calculate the total momentum we need to know the momentum (mass-velocity) of each layer.
I once built a 12' compound trebuchet based on the same principal. A compound trebuchet uses a large cam on the weight end, like a compound bow, to increase the leverage at the start and increase the velocity near the end of the trebuchet arm swing. This coupled to the secondary arc of the projectile sling produced crazy distances. I was throwing 6" pumpkins over 150 yards. A trebuchet may look simple but there's a lot of physics involved and timing is everything.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.21, 15:23:16
Broli
This sounds really confusing to me.
There are not two kinds of masses, there is one kind of mass which undergoes different kinds of motions. With linear motion all the mass is moving at the same velocity. Where with angular motion the velocity increases the further away the mass is from the point of rotation. In effect, with angular motion the momentum or (mass-velocity) increases the further we are away from the point of rotation. This is why we place most of the mass of a flywheel at the perimeter. The inside mass does almost nothing and the majority of the kinetic energy or momentum is stored at the rim.
Imagine we live in 2d space only for a moment where we can draw as much point masses as we like. Ask yourself this then, what is the minimum mass distribution/geometry you need to allow for mass to move at a constant velocity in a straight like with nothing else around influencing it. The answer is a point mass is sufficient to achieve that goal. Now do the same for circular motion, what is the least viable geometry you need if you only had point masses to work with to achieve that goal. Well a single point is out of the question as we would then need to apply a constant acceleration on the mass to keep it rotating and we stipulated that was no outside influence allowed. Alright then what if we two two points and connect them with infinite points in between to get a line segment. This newly evolved geometry will now also have a new attribute associated with it as we used point masses to create it so there must also be an average of all those points masses leading us to the middle of it, that new attribute we call a Center of Mass now. However we gained something else because of that too. If we ignore HOW we set it in rotational motion, would you not agree that such line segment will be able to rotate now without outside influence indefinitely and thus achieving our goal?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.21, 15:23:16
I think part of the confusion relates to how mass and inertia are defined. In physics there is really no such thing as "mass" because mass is represented by an objects resistance to changes in motion which is actually inertia. They also defined inertia as a property of mass. Do you see the problem?, in effect there claiming mass (inertia) is a property of mass. Obviously mass cannot be a property of mass in itself that is absurd.
They use circular reasoning because once again nobody seems to have a clue what inertia is. You see, inertia is defined as an objects resistance to changes in motion but they have no idea where this "resistance" comes from. So they just haphazardly lumped mass and inertia together as one hoping nobody was smart enough to notice.
AC
I agree even if I talk about "mass", I am only doing so as a convenience as everyone at least has a rough idea of what something massive is or looks like. But yes mass is just a repetition of charge but on a greater scale. But mass in of itself is meaningless if we cant measure it and that is indeed what inertia is, it allows us to measure the resistance of something to change. In other words mass is how much something resists change hmmm sounds a lot like magnetic induction.
However this does still not get us closer to the circular motion problem, sure we replaced mass by charge now and inertia by magnetic induction. But given a bunch of electrons, what would you need to keep them in circular motion? The real question is not how to link gravity with quantum mechanics. Its all the same if they chose to accept a single force that always brings two opposite forces together and holds them rigidly in place. For our electrons we need a protonic wire to keep them in or we can build a huge tokamak like structure, but with neither the electrons will fly in all direction as there is no structure to hold them.
The question is why do we always find a "glue" that holds two seemingly opposite things together. Whether its the proton holding electrons together that want to fly appart or quarks and there "gluons". They always seem to face the same structures on every level. Two BIG things that stick together, attracting 2 small things that dont want to be together.
In the atom space we have:
- The quark: two up/down quarks being held by a charm quark
- Helium atom: (the first nobel gas) 2 protons stuck together attracting two electrons that would rather fly appart
- The Water molecule: arguably the most important molecule we know, two hydrogen atoms that wont want to be together but attracted by a much bigger oxygen atom
This is the true fractal nature of nature. There always is "something" bigger holding two smaller things together. But here's a hint, what does it take to go from Hydrogen to helium? What is that weird little "thing" that does that. Some sort of glue??
Well again I ask you now, what do you need to keep a line segment or rotating circle of point masses rotating indefinitely without having its points fly out in all direction as soon as you let it go. What "thing" can connect them or rather should I say "glue" them to achieve that goal.
When you think about reality I found it help full to think like a programmer. What if you needed to simulate reality using software what would you need in order for things to work like we see in reality. And just by pure logic see how far you can get. Reality is not some complex equation, its ridiculously simple if you know its rules. The true beauty is not the equation that defines it but the art it creates across the entire universe beyond our wildest imagination.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.21, 18:09:33
When I think of angular velocity I think of a merry go round. The person at the center feels very little if any outward force but as we get further from the center it get harder to hold on because the velocity thus forces increase. We could also note the kid who inevitably gets thrown off is always at the perimeter and tumbles off in a straight line. The outward acting force we feel is our body wanting to move in a straight line but constrained to move in a circle.
In Engineering we think of a rotating mass as more like a rotating onion. Every layer rotates at the same RPM however each layer has a different velocity and momentum (mass-velocity) because of it's distance from the center. So to calculate the total momentum we need to know the momentum (mass-velocity) of each layer.
I once built a 12' compound trebuchet based on the same principal. A compound trebuchet uses a large cam on the weight end, like a compound bow, to increase the leverage at the start and increase the velocity near the end of the trebuchet arm swing. This coupled to the secondary arc of the projectile sling produced crazy distances. I was throwing 6" pumpkins over 150 yards. A trebuchet may look simple but there's a lot of physics involved and timing is everything.
AC
In the merry go around what did you need to hold on and keep moving in a circle? A pole or anything stuck to it should do. So you needed structure to grab onto using your semi structured and soft hands. If either where not structured enough every atom in your body would stop going in a circle. This "structure" is the glue that repeats on every scale. Whether we call them chemical bonds, gluons, neutrons, its always the same. A force that holds opposite things together and gives them structure so they can interact in time. However perhaps a better way to say it is we needed some sort of glue between our point masses in the simulation software.
Back to my cave now, see you soon. O0
Quoteauthor=broli link=topic=4661.msg112329#msg112329 date=1716281913
Let me chime in for a second and say this. Newtons third law is NOT wrong,
Neither is Newtons second law.
The third law is in relation to the sum of forces between two objects/masses.
Newtons second law defines the total sum of all forces within a system, acting upon a single object/mass
Newtons second law explains as to how kinetic energy is formed, and as to where that energy comes from.
Brad
On the notion of a magnet motor, what happens if it adheres to newtons third laws, but violates the conservation of energy as we know it.
The only explanation would be that the energy is coming from whatever makes up the magnetic field--would it not?
On the subject of the conservation of energy, if the universe is one big isolated system, how is it increasing in energy, by means of speeding up and expanding?
Brad
If the system is closed then:
Potential Energy + Kinetic Energy = Constant
The motor or rather "friction" would be the "diode" between both, our free will decides the direction of said diode. If the system is not closed, then we can only assume it has infinite potential energy and then there is even less of a question of our diode or ion channel directing energy in the direction we want. All you need is a tiny hole to extract as much kinetic energy as you want just like ion channels do in our cells:
https://youtu.be/MGtc84gFWfo?t=469
Closed or open, a diode or ion channel, at the end of the day it doesn't matter which it is if its applications can transform our lives. Chasing dragons is what the branch of physics has been doing for the past 100 years, history is meant to teach us about past mistakes as to not repeat them in the future. That is also why I have Abandoned the idea of there being a "theory of everything", this egotistical mindset is very detrimental to progress , and just like like any addiction, your mental health will suffer greatly, I dont recommend it. What I do recommend is to build improved simulation software to simulate reality from these new ideas by combining all "forces" into one package, it wont get us on top of the proverbial dragon but at least we can admire it from the distance.
Accept the gift, build it, program it, share it and move on with life.
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.22, 12:05:06
...
On the subject of the conservation of energy, if the universe is one big isolated system, how is it increasing in energy, by means of speeding up and expanding?
...
What is the proof that energy would increase in our universe?
You assume it in the question, but we don't have it. Energy per unit volume is decreasing.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.23, 08:16:50
What is the proof that energy would increase in our universe?
You assume it in the question, but we don't have it. Energy per unit volume is decreasing.
Would have to disagree with you there F6.
If the space is increasing between two massive objects, then the potential energy also increases, in the way of potential gravitational energy between them.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.23, 11:59:19
Would have to disagree with you there F6.
If the space is increasing between two massive objects, then the potential energy also increases, in the way of potential gravitational energy between them.
Brad
Hi Brad,
That didn't sound right so I sought an opinion from chatGPT.
bi
QuoteChatGPT
User
If the space is increasing between two massive objects, then does the potential energy also increases, in the way of potential gravitational energy between them?
ChatGPT
Yes, if the distance between two massive objects is increasing, the gravitational potential energy of the system also increases. This is because gravitational potential energy (U) between two masses (m1 and m2) separated by a distance (r) is given by the formula:
U = - G*m1*m2/r
where
G is the gravitational constant. The negative sign indicates that the potential energy is lower (more negative) when the objects are closer together.
As the distance r increases, the magnitude of the negative potential energy decreases (becomes less negative), meaning the potential energy increases. For example, if the objects are moved further apart, the value of r decreases, making the entire expression for U less negative. This corresponds to an increase in gravitational potential energy.
User
Then as distance between stars, or between galaxies increases to infinity, energy does also. Does not sound right.
ChatGPT
Your concern is understandable. When we say that the gravitational potential energy increases as the distance between two massive objects increases, it means it becomes less negative, approaching zero.
The formula for gravitational potential energy is:
U = - G*m1*m2/r
As the distance r approaches infinity, the term 1/r approaches zero. Thus, the gravitational potential energy U approaches zero as well. It doesn't increase to infinity; instead, it approaches zero from the negative side.
In summary, as the distance between two objects increases to infinity, the gravitational potential energy approaches zero, not infinity. This makes sense because when the objects are infinitely far apart, the gravitational interaction between them becomes negligible.
Also, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.23, 13:38:02
Hi Brad,
That didn't sound right so I sought an opinion from chatGPT.
bi
Also, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html
Seems to agree with me, as the distance between any two objects in any part of the universe, is at less than 0.000000000000001% of infinity.
Brad
Well this is odd.
I asked chatGPT a question in relation to one of my magnet motor designs, and this is what happened, not once, but every time i asked the same question.
When i asked a different, totally unrelated question about rising sea levels, it had no problem giving the full answer--no network errors at all.
So, after that, i once again asked the same question about the magnet motor, and got this network error garbage again, before it finished answering the question.\
Perhaps someone else could ask lol.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.23, 23:49:08
Well this is odd..\
Perhaps someone else could ask lol.
Brad
OK Brad,
QuoteIs it possible, where you have two counter rotating interconnected masses, and where newtons 3rd law is adhered to, you could have an all magnet motor.
Copilot
The concept of an all-magnet motor, where two counter-rotating interconnected masses adhere to Newton's third law, is theoretically intriguing but practically challenging. Newton's third law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This principle would need to be maintained in the design of such a motor.
In the context of magnetic motors, the interaction between magnetic fields and electric currents is typically harnessed to produce motion. Most electric motors, including those with permanent magnets, operate by converting electrical energy into mechanical energy through electromagnetic interactions. The design and operation of these motors are well-established and rely on principles such as Lorentz force and the interaction between magnetic fields and current-carrying conductors1.
For an all-magnet motor that solely uses magnets without electrical input, the challenge lies in creating a continuous motion because magnetic forces are conservative. This means that the work done by magnetic forces over a closed path is zero, making it difficult to achieve sustained motion without an external energy source.
While there have been various claims and attempts to create perpetual motion machines using magnets, these designs often fail to produce continuous motion or violate the laws of thermodynamics. The concept of a motor that operates only with magnets and without any external energy input remains within the realm of pseudoscience until a working model can be demonstrated that aligns with established physical laws.
If you're interested in the principles behind rotary magnetic motors, which involve the interaction of magnetic fields and electric currents, you might find resources on commutated rotary magnetic motors informative. These motors use a commutator to reverse the direction of current at specific times to maximize the average positive torque, allowing for continuous rotation1. However, it's important to note that these motors still require an electrical input to operate.
For a deeper understanding of the physics behind magnetic motors and their design, you might consider studying materials from reputable educational sources, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's OpenCourseWare, which offers detailed explanations of electric machines and their operation principles2.
1
phys.libretexts.org
2
ocw.mit.edu
3
magneticbearings.org
What are some other challenges in creating perpetual motion machines?
Can you explain more about the Lorentz force and its role in electric motors?
Are there any real-world applications of magnetic motors?
Response stopped
New topic
That's a different and new version of chat. I'll see what the old one says.
bi
edit:
From the older chatGPT
Quote
User
Is it possible, where you have two counter rotating interconnected masses, and where newtons 3rd law is adhered to, you could have an all magnet motor?
ChatGPT
The concept of an all-magnet motor where two counter-rotating interconnected masses are used is intriguing and touches on several principles of physics and electromagnetism. To explore whether such a motor could be viable, we need to consider a few key aspects:
Newton's Third Law of Motion: This law states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Any force exerted by one part of the system on another will result in an equal and opposite force exerted back. This law ensures that the total momentum of the system is conserved.
Conservation of Angular Momentum: If you have two counter-rotating masses, the angular momentum of one must be countered by the angular momentum of the other to maintain a net zero angular momentum for the system (assuming no external torques act on it).
Magnetic Forces and Work: Magnetic forces are conservative in nature, meaning the work done by magnetic forces in moving a charge (or a magnetic dipole) in a closed loop is zero. For a motor to function, it needs to convert energy from one form to another efficiently.
Given these principles, let's outline a hypothetical scenario for an all-magnet motor:
Interconnected Counter-Rotating Masses: Suppose you have two masses connected in such a way that they can rotate in opposite directions. If these masses have magnets attached to them, the magnetic fields will interact.
Magnetic Field Interaction: As the masses rotate, the changing magnetic fields could induce forces. However, because of Newton's third law, these forces will always be balanced by equal and opposite forces within the system.
Challenges:
Energy Input: For continuous rotation, an external energy source is required to overcome resistive forces like friction and air resistance. Magnets alone cannot create a perpetual motion machine; energy must be supplied from an external source.
Magnetic Synchronization: The magnetic forces need to be carefully synchronized to ensure that they produce useful work rather than merely counteracting each other.
Practical Implementation: Designing a system where the magnetic fields produce a net torque without violating conservation laws or requiring external intervention is complex.
While purely magnetic motors exist (such as those using permanent magnets and electromagnets in conventional electric motors), a motor relying solely on permanent magnets and adhering strictly to Newton's third law without external energy input would face significant theoretical and practical challenges.
In conclusion, an all-magnet motor as described, where two counter-rotating masses interact through magnetic forces while fully adhering to Newton's third law, would not function as a self-sustaining motor. External energy input is necessary to maintain motion and produce useful work.
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.17, 10:48:13
ps. Thanks for posting that video in reply #153. Wow!
I have been thinking.
If you enjoyed that video, and if what they show is true, then there must be room there for you to be even the smallest bit open to other laws of physics being broken.
If we can have a propellantless drive, then why not an all magnet motor?
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.24, 13:00:37
I have been thinking.
If you enjoyed that video, and if what they show is true, then there must be room there for you to be even the smallest bit open to other laws of physics being broken.
If we can have a propellantless drive, then why not an all magnet motor?
Brad
Hi Brad,
I'm skeptical. If these things come to pass, I believe we'll discover how such fits into our models, or how to improve our models (knowledge). Reason I'm here - looking for proof. Hope to see it some day.
I enjoy Star Trek also.
bi
Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.24, 14:36:49
...
- looking for proof. Hope to see it some day.
I enjoy Star Trek also.
bi
Me too.
When you read the vague chatGPT clichés, without a single proof-of-concept model, without operational details and without a theoretical idea, that's certainly not where any practical realization can come from.
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.23, 11:59:19
Would have to disagree with you there F6.
If the space is increasing between two massive objects, then the potential energy also increases, in the way of potential gravitational energy between them.
...
By limiting the question to potential energy, you're simply forgetting about all other forms of energy, and considering current knowledge to be definitive when it's actually incomplete.
The problem is far more complex, and more solid theories than energy non-conservation are being constructed to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe (notably dark energy).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.25, 08:37:42
By limiting the question to potential energy, you're simply forgetting about all other forms of energy, and considering current knowledge to be definitive when it's actually incomplete.
The problem is far more complex, and more solid theories than energy non-conservation are being constructed to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe (notably dark energy).
Can you explain why there is such a thing as an absolute zero temperature but no known upper bound limits to temperature? I have been racking my brain on that for a while now.
Tinman
QuoteIf the space is increasing between two massive objects, then the potential energy also increases, in the way of potential gravitational energy between them.
As a realist I always found the term "potential energy" to be absurd. Potential energy describing the supposed energy that an object possesses due to its position relative to other objects or its configuration. I do not recognize potential energy as a valid form of energy.
Energy is defined as the capacity of something to perform work. Work defined as what happens when a force applied to an object causing it to move in the direction of the force. Key concept, to move or change in reality not imaginary. The term potential energy only implies something could move not that it is or will start moving/changing.
However if science wants to use nonsensical terms imagining a measure of something or possibility of something happening is actually something tangible we can use this. I declare everything everywhere in the universe has unlimited potential energy because there is the possibility it could move anywhere relative to any other thing for any reason. Everything everywhere must have an unlimited quantity of this imaginary potential energy.
Here is a clue from Chat GPT, Potential energy may not directly manifest as work until it is converted into kinetic energy or some other form of energy. Converted into kinetic energy?, converted from what?, lol. It then goes on to claim potential energy is based on the COE and mathematical formulation. Then the real kicker, it is still considered real because of its fundamental role in the laws of physics. Ah, so there just making crap up pretending potential energy is real energy because of there obsession to calculate everything rather than understand it. Like imaginary lines and loops, imaginary variable space time, imaginary gravity particles/waves, imaginary worm holes and parallel dimensions. Can't understand it?...just make something imaginary seem real, what a gong show.
AC
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.21, 00:11:37
My point was that the strength of the magnetic field matters.
That depends on your definition of the "
strength" of magnetic field. Is it the magnetic flux expressed in Webers or flux density expressed in Teslas ?
The change of one of them does not matter for Faraday's induction.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.21, 00:11:37
Kindly indicate how my statement b) challenges this?
It doesn't.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.05.21, 00:11:37
With the underlined and our configuration in mind then, please explain why the induced voltage is much higher at a magnet's (or coil's) pole vs. at the middle (or near middle) of the magnet (or coil) relative to its length.
Because more flux penetrates the coil at the magnet's pole than at the middle. Not because there is more flux density at the pole.
The transitions between any of the three cases A, B, C depicted below, do NOT cause any Faraday's induction despite wildly different flux densities inside the coil.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55339)
Also, the rate of change of magnetic flux (dΦ/dt) does NOT affect the current induced in an ideal shorted coil.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.25, 19:47:00
Tinman
As a realist I always found the term "potential energy" to be absurd. Potential energy describing the supposed energy that an object possesses due to its position relative to other objects or its configuration. I do not recognize potential energy as a valid form of energy.
Energy is defined as the capacity of something to perform work. Work defined as what happens when a force applied to an object causing it to move in the direction of the force. Key concept, to move or change in reality not imaginary. The term potential energy only implies something could move not that it is or will start moving/changing.
However if science wants to use nonsensical terms imagining a measure of something or possibility of something happening is actually something tangible we can use this. I declare everything everywhere in the universe has unlimited potential energy because there is the possibility it could move anywhere relative to any other thing for any reason. Everything everywhere must have an unlimited quantity of this imaginary potential energy.
Here is a clue from Chat GPT, Potential energy may not directly manifest as work until it is converted into kinetic energy or some other form of energy. Converted into kinetic energy?, converted from what?, lol. It then goes on to claim potential energy is based on the COE and mathematical formulation. Then the real kicker, it is still considered real because of its fundamental role in the laws of physics. Ah, so there just making crap up pretending potential energy is real energy because of there obsession to calculate everything rather than understand it. Like imaginary lines and loops, imaginary variable space time, imaginary gravity particles/waves, imaginary worm holes and parallel dimensions. Can't understand it?...just make something imaginary seem real, what a gong show.
AC
Potential energy is not imaginary, it is real. Ironically we use the imaginary number line to define it. But imaginary numbers have two parts a real part and "imaginary" part. And somehow we forgot that the "imaginary" number i also has two roots too that surprisingly do not ONLY fall on the imaginary number line but between both at 45 degrees which is a major clue Einstein lovers have missed. So "potential" energy must have two forms as well. A linear one, and a non-linear or rather a circular one (the imaginary part). For example, a charged capacitor or the "circular" magnetic energy in a coil, or a raised mass and spinning mass alternatively. Kinetic energy on the other hand is defined by the real number line only, and its roots are simply either positive or negative, there is no rotation and therefore only comes in one form, in straight lines that can either go forward or backward. For example, bullets, electric discharge tubes, thunder, lasers, newtons second law essentially...
The interesting part is the non linear part of energy. Aka rotational "potential" energy aka rotational "kinetic" energy but I dont like to use the latter as its not "kinetic" by nature. Just like we see the energy stored in a gyroscope as potential energy and not kinetic.
The question is how can this form of potential energy be turned into pure linear energy. Newtons laws dont care about HOW momentum is conserved. You can turn 100kg going at 1m/s into 1kg going 100m/s. A massive energy gain but momentum wise nothing changed. This is the true "gift", conservation of momentum not energy. Energy is time based, time can be changed depending on your reference frame, and guess where that happens all the time? Yes in rotation. A rotating wheel has different velocities depending on where you measure at the radius.
Turning "potential" into kinetic energy only depends on our free will not some man made misunderstood "law". Momentum on the other hand is constant across time always conserved, always accounted for all the time. This is why I think KE + PE = constant and why I believe the system we live in is closed. But open or closed it doesn't matter, we just need to find the energy diode and point it in the direction we want.
But hey just another crazy theory, I change my mind all the time too on theories I come up with so take it with a grain of salt.
Perhaps Einstein knew all along and didn't want to taint his legacy at his old age, who knows. Mankind has a bad tendency of turning everything it discovers into cowardly weapons to kill, conquer and oppress. Energy is not going to save us from ourselves, cooperation will.
Do you think its a coincidence that the blackbird cart which keeps accelerating faster than the wind used a VSR (their term for Vehicle Speed Ratio) of 0.7 which is the real and imaginary value for the square root of 'i'? I dont believe in coincidences. Nature has no secrets, everything is there in plain sight if you chose to look. But you can also chose to be blind. The choice is always yours to make.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.25, 08:37:42
By limiting the question to potential energy, you're simply forgetting about all other forms of energy, and considering current knowledge to be definitive when it's actually incomplete.
The problem is far more complex, and more solid theories than energy non-conservation are being constructed to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe (notably dark energy).
Well we agree that there must be some other form of energy that we are yet to find, acting against the gravitational !force! between all massive bodies in the universe.
You need energy to increase potential energy between two massive bodies-or any two bodies of mass for that matter.
So, as the space between any two masses increases, where a gravitational attraction exists between those two masses, the potential energy is increasing between those two masses.
So, what is the energy or force that is stretching this universal elastic band?
Brad
Quote from: broli on 2024.05.25, 15:58:37
Can you explain why there is such a thing as an absolute zero temperature but no known upper bound limits to temperature? I have been racking my brain on that for a while now.
Why is highest not known, in physics it is postulated as the "Planck temperature", equal to 1.416784 * 10^32 K. At this temperature, the energy of particles becomes so high that gravitational interaction outweighs all others. This is the temperature of the Big Bang. Above this limit, quantum mechanics does not work due to the lack of a theory of quantum gravity. 8)
We usually talk about potential energy in relation to gravitational potential, but all energy is potential, and its realization only appears in its use.
Kinetic energy is also "potential". It exists only in relation to an observer. An object moving at speed v intrinsically possesses no kinetic energy, since kinetic energy is 1/2.M.v² only in relation to that observer in relation to whom the object is at speed v, while at the same time it is 1/2.M.v'², i.e. any value, in relation to an observer at different speed in relation to it, and even 0 in relation to an observer moving with it. Energy is always potential for the user, who is also potential.
Electromagnetic energy is also potential. An electromagnetic wave is said to carry energy. But this is not true. The energy taken is that required to build the EM field. Then energy is potential: it's the energy that the observer can extract from the field, and this is not the same as the energy at the source of the field. If the observer is moving, he will see a higher or lower frequency f of the EM field and therefore extract greater or lower energy h.f per photon than that taken from the EM source alone.
Energy is not a physical entity; it always depends on the reference frame. Extracting energy therefore requires a condition of imbalance between a source and an absorber, it's not some kind of blob you can tap into.
Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.26, 02:55:16
Well we agree that there must be some other form of energy that we are yet to find, acting against the gravitational !force! between all massive bodies in the universe.
You need energy to increase potential energy between two massive bodies-or any two bodies of mass for that matter.
So, as the space between any two masses increases, where a gravitational attraction exists between those two masses, the potential energy is increasing between those two masses.
So, what is the energy or force that is stretching this universal elastic band?
Brad
That's the question. If the answer were known, it would no longer be a problem.
Again, science is incomplete and probably always will be. The unknown remains. The error of reasoning around this situation is called the "argument from ignorance".
It assumes that since we don't know what form of energy would be depleted by the expansion of the universe, which seems to increase gravitational potential energy, then the only answer would be that energy cannot be conserved. This is a fallacy.
Ignorance does not permit such conclusions. That something more, like energy, should appear from nothing in our universe, as opposed to everything we already know, is going to require somewhat stronger evidence than "potential energy increases". Even so, the simplest hypothesis is - since so far we've never seen an exception to the conservation of energy - that the supposed extra potential energy of expansion is taken from somewhere in what the universe contains, or that potential energy doesn't actually change on the scale of the universe for some cosmological reason.
Only time will tell.
Energy is defined as the capacity of something to perform work. Work is defined as what happens when a force applied to an object causing it to
move in the direction of the force.
Key concept, to move or change. The work-energy theorem states that the work done on an object is equal to the change in its kinetic energy.
In fact there is only one kind of energy and it always relates to the motion of something. No motion means no Work (Force x Distance) thus no energy. Note "motion" is defined as a change in position which applies to physical motion or a field change. It doesn't matter how something moves or changes only that it does to be considered energy.
For example, heat is kinetic energy or a measure of how fast particles jiggle. Chemical energy relates to the bonds between atoms changing/moving/rearranging thus kinetic in nature. Nuclear energy is kinetic in nature when atoms fission/fusion losing electrons/protons or gaining them ie. particle motion. Electromagnetic energy is kinetic in it's nature relating to moving particles and/or field changes like EM waves.
Key concept, to move or change.
This is why the most brilliant FE inventors like Nikola Tesla claimed the whole universe is kinetic in it's nature.
QuoteEre many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antaeus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.
It's no wonder 99% of people tend to fail at free energy. Judging from what I have seen nobody seems to have a clue what energy is or how it works. One would think the term "free energy" would have been the first clue that the concept of energy is really all that matters. Yet energy would seem to be the last thing on anyone's mind. I wonder why that is?, is it just a lack of understanding or is it intentional?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.05.26, 14:53:05
...
In fact there is only one kind of energy and it always relates to the motion of something.
...
Energy requires no motion, for example the potential energy of a mass at rest above the ground, the electrical energy in a capacitor...
Only work requires motion because it is an orderly transfer of energy.
Work and energy are linked but do not have the exact same meaning.
Quote
...
It's no wonder 99% of people tend to fail at free energy.
...
rather 100% according to the latest survey. ;D
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.26, 20:50:54
rather 100% according to the latest survey. ;D
Re survey:
I am going to call it Kapanadze's Law.
Kapanadze's law states that the likelihood of publicly disclosing apparent over-unity (ie a new form of "free" energy) is directly proportional
to the perceived likelihood of someone stealing your invention and you not getting paid for your hard work.Hence the suggested 100% result.
Anyone who thinks that researchers on this or any forum will spill the beans is living in la la land.
Ask a couple of the researchers on this forum. (we know who they are).
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2024.05.27, 00:32:49
Re survey:
I am going to call it Kapanadze's Law.
Kapanadze's law states that the likelihood of publicly disclosing apparent over-unity (ie a new form of "free" energy) is directly proportional
to the perceived likelihood of someone stealing your invention and you not getting paid for your hard work.
Hence the suggested 100% result.
Anyone who thinks that researchers on this or any forum will spill the beans is living in la la land.
Ask a couple of the researchers on this forum. (we know who they are).
It's funny; Kapanadze said he was not an inventor, but he only repeated correctly what Tesla did. On the other hand, I heard that he came into possession of the plans of some inventor before him.
You wanted to give him money but he didn't want it.
You can also make a very good living by cheating people. Doesn't this suit Kapanadze better?
If the rule is simple but no one can repeat it to this day, there is probably something wrong here and it is not about people's abilities but about the trick.
David Coperrfield flew over the stage. We know it was an illusion related to thin ropes. If you didn't know this, people would still wave their arms thinking they would fly, just as we are trying to replicate Kapanadze's device. You don't know the trick and that's why we still believe it's real but only up to this point.
You say you were there and saw it. ok but you haven't seen the rabbit in the hat.
I'm not against you, but I look at it all objectively.
You can take it to the Bank ?
AKing
Quote
Anyone who thinks that researchers on this or any forum will spill the beans is living in la la land.
Ask a couple of the researchers on this forum. (we know who they are).
End quote
Sir
Speaking to most persons who actually build and share their work at the open source forums..( for many years)
Your comment is more than slightly confusing to me ...
Yes there are many in the world who chase the happiness of "the bank"..
Here the wealth is in the persons of like mind who toil for a different "bank"
One you can't buy with currency....
I am eternally grateful for those "of like mind" who toil here ( and elsewhere ..
Just trying to do the "next right thing"for our planet and the next generation..
And it ain't a bank deposit...
Not just one man's opinion,
Respectfully
Chet K
PS
Yes , I am not so naive to assume "we" don't need resources ( funds etc)
We already have the most important resource ( people of like mind with incredible skills)
We are working on the other part (how to fund,
Aggressively!!
Personally ( my pet peeve)
I feel like a total Putz flushing "pure clean drinking water" down the toilet..
And burning "pure clean atmosphere " to drive myself to and fro ..
To me it's a kind of blasphemy..or disrespect to our home and the wonderful resources we have been provided..
I could go on and on ...
It's 3:00 am on the side of the road ( a truck stop ) between NYC and Boston ..
Many more miles to go ..
RE , open source FE
I hope "we" get there soon , and appreciate all who toil ..
AKing,
For a long time I asked you about non-obvious details at the presentation of Kapanadze's device:
- about odors in the room and during operation of the device;
- about transparent white spots like limescale on the walls of the aquarium.
You didn't give a detailed answer. :(
To the other "two researchers" who do not share...
Unless something happens that changes the course of history, times will come again when no one will need it.
Seeing the low activity lately on this forum, this is already happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtjGTrVwRr4
Quote from: sergh on 2024.05.27, 07:46:18
...
- about transparent white spots like limescale on the walls of the aquarium.
...
This may be due to the temperature or solvent vapors or the friction of the sandpaper. etc.
This may be due to the substance that was scattered during the assembly and adjustment process, and then carefully wiped off to hide it.
"Sol BORENIJA" (https://realstrannik-com.translate.goog/forum/btg-tarielya-kapanadze/697-btg-kapanadze-teoriya-i-praktika?start=130&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp) from this drawing, probably by Kapanadze.
Borenium salt
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.26, 14:09:53
Ignorance does not permit such conclusions. That something more, like energy, should appear from nothing in our universe, as opposed to everything we already know, is going to require somewhat stronger evidence than "potential energy increases". Even so, the simplest hypothesis is - since so far we've never seen an exception to the conservation of energy - that the supposed extra potential energy of expansion is taken from somewhere in what the universe contains, or that potential energy doesn't actually change on the scale of the universe for some cosmological reason.
Only time will tell.
I am detecting a pattern with your posts. You skirt around reasonable arguments and go for the "easy kills" almost to suit your own ego. I have offered collaboration and you ignored it. PMed you, you ignored it. I have argued before that energy can be perfectly conserved in a closed system if you accept there is such a thing as a diode or the proverbial maxwell demon you ignored it. I argued that potential energy and Kinetic energy can be perfectly exchanged and conserved, you ignored it. I wasted time in making a thread on Blackbird, you ignored it.
You ignored the significance of the force of friction that I brought up multiple times. What losses are there if friction is the very force doing to exchange? Please tell me. Tell me, what other force in nature uses a SIGN, function in its definition. A non-continuous function which arguably has no definition for 0. Please inform me. It is right in front your eyes. Are you sure that your own ego has not infected your "rational" mind? There are so many things we are forced to do and belief in this world however ignorance, a word you like to use often, is a choice. And the universe is not kind to it, you either adapt or roll over.
I never understood why people keep digging themselves so deeply rather than just walk away and observe. At the very least you could put your ego aside and say "I dont know, show me.". If this is an example of what is to come then we wont learn a damn thing and only end up repeating our nature of seeking conflicts with our inflated fragile egos.
What is your true goal here if not to share ideas, collaborate and perhaps learn something new? Do you enjoy conflict?
Aking.21
QuoteI am going to call it Kapanadze's Law.
Kapanadze's law states that the likelihood of publicly disclosing apparent over-unity (ie a new form of "free" energy) is directly proportional
to the perceived likelihood of someone stealing your invention and you not getting paid for your hard work.
Hence the suggested 100% result.
Indeed, this happens more often than not.
In some sense we do have proof that free energy technology is in fact real. You see countless inventors did sell there working free energy technology for very large sums of money. Now if the technology did not work then why didn't the buyers try to sue the inventors for fraud?. Apparently the technology did work and the buyers were happy with there purchase of a working FE device. The critics seldom mention this fact.
For example, Alfred Hubbard was paid large sums of money for his working free energy technology.
http://rexresearch.com/hubbard/hubbard.htm
QuoteIn 1919, guided by other-worldly forces, Hubbard invented the Hubbard Energy Transformer, a radioactive battery that could not be explained by the technology of the day. The Seattle Post- Intelligencer reported that Hubbard's invention, hidden in an 11" x 14" box, had powered a ferry-sized vessel around Seattle's Portico Bay nonstop for three days. Fifty percent rights to the patent were eventually bought by the Radium Corporation of Pittsburgh for $75,000, and nothing more was heard of the Hubbard Energy Transformer.
$75,000 in 1919 works out to about $1.5 million dollars today. Does anyone honestly think a corporation would be cheated out of $1.5 million dollars and do nothing about it?. The odds of a pig flying over your house are greater than a corporation being cheated and doing nothing about it.
I love the Hubbard story, there's something appealing about a 16 year old kid successfully building a working FE device where the critics failed. A 16 year old kid, from 1919 no less, proved he is more capable than all the critics, it's just priceless.
AC
Quote from: broli on 2024.05.27, 13:05:15
I am detecting a pattern with your posts. You skirt around reasonable arguments and go for the "easy kills" almost to suit your own ego.
...
I don't respond to personal attacks, it's way too stupid.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
Eleanor Roosevelt
Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.05.28, 06:50:51
I don't respond to personal attacks, it's way too stupid.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
Eleanor Roosevelt
Indeed O0