New magnetic field model

[Allcanadian]

Was doing a little research on ferrocells and found it really interesting.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-The-ferrocell-left-and-the-ferrocell-fitted-in-a-3D-printed-frame-right-with-the_fig7_326256770
It's weird that after all these years of people calling the bloch wall a myth we now have demonstrable proof it exists. It makes sense that better more accurate tools would give better results imo.

My research with hall effect magnetic field sensor arrays was moving in this direction. The present magnetic field model shown in textbooks is incorrect and more an artifact of induced magnetism. Parallel iron filings tend to repel and series iron filing tend to attract. So the supposed field lines and structure are completely dependent on the length of the iron filings being induced. This is why iron nanoparticles show a much better, higher resolution field structure than larger filings. The perfect medium would be perfectly spherical iron particles as small as we could make them in suspension.

This would also seem to verify the claims by many FE inventors the bloch wall is real and a field change could be produced by the smallest movement with the right setup and geometry. It could be that were building everything wrong using incorrect geometry. My first insight in this direction was reading the work of Carl Schappeller over a decade ago. https://rexresearch.com/schapp/schapp.htm . Many inventors did not build solenoid coils like everyone else more so spherical or vortex shaped coils.

In any case, we now have some evidence to suggest the bloch wall is a real phenomena and could be capitalized on.

[bistander]

Was doing a little research on ferrocells and found it really interesting.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-The-ferrocell-left-and-the-ferrocell-fitted-in-a-3D-printed-frame-right-with-the_fig7_326256770
It's weird that after all these years of people calling the bloch wall a myth we now have demonstrable proof it exists. It makes sense that better more accurate tools would give better results imo.
<snip>

I like FractalWoman's opinion and video on the subject.

https://youtu.be/vTV1EVb-V2c?si=U1-pLdzwINKitSzv

bi

edit

Quote by FractalWoman:

"This video is a quasi-review of a paper called "The Quantum Field of a Magnet" by Emmanouil Markoulakis. Although it might seem like I am picking on the author in this video (and I am a little), that is not why I am doing this. In reality, EM and I have the same goal in mind. We both want to understand how the ferrocell works. EM thinks I am misguided and I think he is misguided. But the only thing that really matters (and the only thing that anyone cares about) is the demonstrable truth and not some hypothetical truth that is impossible to prove.

Computer simulations are a kind of proof. If you can't demonstrate your "theory" via computer simulations, then it is of no use to me. I am a computer scientist. I have been for a long time. I need logic, I need clarity, and I NEED CODE, in order to fully understand a concept. When I wanted to understand the torus knot, I wrote some code. When I wanted to understand Ionel Dinu's Aether circulation model, I wrote some code.

AB's CODE clearly demonstrated TO ME how the ferrocell works. It is not an over simplification in my opinion, nor is it a "cartoon". It is the real deal. This is exactly what I was looking for (and what the other ferrocell researchers were unable to produce). In my mind, a computer simulation of the ferrocell is the BEST way to show how a ferrocell works and AB's simulation succeeds in every case that I try. So, in terms of understanding HOW a ferrocell works, I am satisfied with the results. "

[Allcanadian]

I like FractalWoman's opinion and video on the subject.

https://youtu.be/vTV1EVb-V2c?si=U1-pLdzwINKitSzv

bi

edit

Quote by FractalWoman:

"This video is a quasi-review of a paper called "The Quantum Field of a Magnet" by Emmanouil Markoulakis. Although it might seem like I am picking on the author in this video (and I am a little), that is not why I am doing this. In reality, EM and I have the same goal in mind. We both want to understand how the ferrocell works. EM thinks I am misguided and I think he is misguided. But the only thing that really matters (and the only thing that anyone cares about) is the demonstrable truth and not some hypothetical truth that is impossible to prove.

Computer simulations are a kind of proof. If you can't demonstrate your "theory" via computer simulations, then it is of no use to me. I am a computer scientist. I have been for a long time. I need logic, I need clarity, and I NEED CODE, in order to fully understand a concept. When I wanted to understand the torus knot, I wrote some code. When I wanted to understand Ionel Dinu's Aether circulation model, I wrote some code.

AB's CODE clearly demonstrated TO ME how the ferrocell works. It is not an over simplification in my opinion, nor is it a "cartoon". It is the real deal. This is exactly what I was looking for (and what the other ferrocell researchers were unable to produce). In my mind, a computer simulation of the ferrocell is the BEST way to show how a ferrocell works and AB's simulation succeeds in every case that I try. So, in terms of understanding HOW a ferrocell works, I am satisfied with the results. "

It's a well presented video and interesting to note the author claims the center is not a bloch wall and there is no term for the phenomena. The effect acts like a bloch wall but is not a separation of magnetic domains by definition which I agree with. The fact that the effect doesn't even have a name is telling in itself.

The logic is also debatable, the author claims the effect is not a bloch wall then goes on to show the magnetic domain structure in a magnet. However, the effect is not in the magnet but external to it as a magnetic field effect. The actual problem here is easy to explain. The author supposes one field property or polarity transitions into a different one with no transition. In science this is heresy and literally the equivalent of getting something from nothing imo. As I explained prior, this is like saying the color black becomes white with no transition. A transition defined as a "change" in state, property or form. In other words the claim is that something changed but didn't change.

There is a simple test to prove the effect imo. Take a thin strip of iron and try to hold it near the center of the magnet between the poles. The iron strip has an extreme force away from the center towards either pole. What does this tell us?. This tells me there is very little if any magnetic field near the center transition point. The iron strip always moves away from the weakest part of a magnetic field towards the strongest part of the field. Which makes sense because a N pole cannot become a S pole without transitioning to zero in the process. Very similar to an AC sine wave where the negative electric field polarity drops to zero, the zero crossing, in order to become a positive polarity.

As such what were seeing in the center of the magnet is a "zero crossing". It applies to magnetic and electric fields.

[bistander]

It's a well presented video and interesting to note the author claims the center is not a bloch wall and there is no term for the phenomena. The effect acts like a bloch wall but is not a separation of magnetic domains by definition which I agree with. The fact that the effect doesn't even have a name is telling in itself.

The logic is also debatable, the author claims the effect is not a bloch wall then goes on to show the magnetic domain structure in a magnet. However, the effect is not in the magnet but external to it as a magnetic field effect. The actual problem here is easy to explain. The author supposes one field property or polarity transitions into a different one with no transition. In science this is heresy and literally the equivalent of getting something from nothing imo. As I explained prior, this is like saying the color black becomes white with no transition. A transition defined as a "change" in state, property or form. In other words the claim is that something changed but didn't change.

There is a simple test to prove the effect imo. Take a thin strip of iron and try to hold it near the center of the magnet between the poles. The iron strip has an extreme force away from the center towards either pole. What does this tell us?. This tells me there is very little if any magnetic field near the center transition point. The iron strip always moves away from the weakest part of a magnetic field towards the strongest part of the field. Which makes sense because a N pole cannot become a S pole without transitioning to zero in the process. Very similar to an AC sine wave where the negative electric field polarity drops to zero, the zero crossing, in order to become a positive polarity.

As such what were seeing in the center of the magnet is a "zero crossing". It applies to magnetic and electric fields.

"The author supposes one field property or polarity transitions into a different one with no transition."

I don't think that is the case at all. Transition? From what to what?

It is one field through the magnet. The direction of the vectors describing the field point outward on one surface called North Pole and on the opposite surface, those vectors point inwards and it is termed a South pole. Near the middle of a side surface, the field vectors are parallel to the surface. There is no change at middle. See this:

Magnets and Electromagnets https://share.google/XWkhXgXUKi1NE2iOR

bi

[Smudge]

"The author supposes one field property or polarity transitions into a different one with no transition."

I don't think that is the case at all. Transition? From what to what?

It is one field through the magnet. The direction of the vectors describing the field point outward on one surface called North Pole and on the opposite surface, those vectors point inwards and it is termed a South pole. Near the middle of a side surface, the field vectors are parallel to the surface. There is no change at middle.

But there is a change in the field gradient (field magnitude rate-of-change with distance along the magnet), going from positive to negative so passing through zero at the center point.  The force on a spherical particle of magnetically permeable material is determined by the field gradient.  It may be wrong to call that center point a Bloch wall but it has a significance as a point of instability, so it deserves a name.

Smudge

[F6FLT]

A model is only necessary to explain observations. Which observations would the model without ether fail to explain, and which would the new model with ether explain?
Without any suggestion of a demonstrable difference between the two models, Lori Gardi's idea is vague and unnecessary.
The model without the aether explains our observations, and it is the simplest. There will only be reasons to change it when new observations prove to be inexplicable or incompatible with it.