Monopole magnet motor?

[TinMan]

Many times i have heard people say that if they only had a monopole magnet,they could make a self running magnet motor.

So my question for you all is-how would it be any different with a monopole magnet than it would be using a dipole magnet.I can see no way that having a monopole magnet would make any difference or have any advantage in making an all magnet motor than if you had a normal old dipole magnet.

There is a reason i ask this question,but that will come a little later on.So who has a design for an all magnet motor that would work if only you had monopole magnet's?.

[BEP]

No designs here but....

Magnetic monopoles would not attract or repulse even ferrous materials because attraction/repulsion is due to the fact that magnetic lines of force always seek the shortest path and completion of the loop.

Monopole = no loops/no connections

If a magnetic monopole attracted/repulsed the result would be a dipole.

If you wish to work with magnetic monopoles just change the name from magnetic monopole to static electric charge. You will have it 

[ion]

One might also consider that the key to free energy would be to totally prevent the looping in a PM from occurring. Shunting concentrates looping, not what we want.

Then one would build charge on each pole. This would require a dielectric insulator between two halves of a PM, and a means to counter rotate rotate each half at relatavistic speeds. (of course an impossibility).

[TinMan]

No designs here but....

Magnetic monopoles would not attract or repulse even ferrous materials because attraction/repulsion is due to the fact that magnetic lines of force always seek the shortest path and completion of the loop.

Monopole = no loops/no connections

If a magnetic monopole attracted/repulsed the result would be a dipole.

If you wish to work with magnetic monopoles just change the name from magnetic monopole to static electric charge. You will have it 

Mmm,on this we will have to disagree WW.Mono meaning one-one pole with a flow in one direction.If we take a thin piece of iron(or similar material)and place one north pole of a magnet on that piece of iron,and then bring another north pole of a magnet close to that thin piece of iron-we will feel a repulsion.But as we get close the repulsion becomes weaker,until the other magnet sticks to the thin piece of iron.We now have two south ends and a center north magnet-and still there is a field flow.I probably didn't do the best at explaining what I'm trying to say,but it is relative to what will be coming soon.

By monopole magnet,i mean a magnet that has only one detectable pole-while the other is concentrated at the center.This way only one field is present,but both remain to maintain the loop you speak of.Any magnetic material that is placed at either end of a magnet,only becomes an extention of that field-it dose not change the field of the magnet itself.If we have say a 3 inch bar magnet with north and south fields at each end,and we place a 2 inch steel bolt on the north end of the bar magnet-we now have a weak north field that is around 3 inches long,and a strong south field which is around 1 inch long.The one inch remaining we will call the transition field.

[TinMan]

One might also consider that the key to free energy would be to totally prevent the looping in a PM from occurring.

Then one would build charge on each pole. This would require a dielectric insulator between two halves of a PM, and a means to counter rotate rotate each half at near relatavistic speeds.

This sounds a bit like the unipolar generator ION.Now if by applying a current to a magnet can produce rotation(unipolar motor)Then should not rotation of the magnet also produce a current?
And this dielectric you speak of, would be made of what? And what would be the relatavistic speed?.I dont think i have seen anything like what you speak of,ever been tried.Could it realy be that simple?.

[TinMan]

One might also consider that the key to free energy would be to totally prevent the looping in a PM from occurring. Shunting concentrates looping, not what we want.

Then one would build charge on each pole. This would require a dielectric insulator between two halves of a PM, and a means to counter rotate rotate each half at relatavistic speeds. (of course an impossibility).

Ah now ION-you went and edited your post lol.
If electricity and magnetic fields are needed for each to exist,and we can make a one way valve for electrical flow(diode)-then why would it be so hard to make one (diode) for magnetic flow.If this device could be made,then that would change the whole ball game.

[e2matrix]

It would seem if they were the same monopole and a true monopole they could be arranged in a repulsion mode so their would be no 'sticky point' and thus a circular arrangement could spin.   

tinman, do you have something in mind that could be a magnetic diode?  Mu-metal box?  Halbach array?

[BEP]

tinman,

An electric or magnetic field are one and the same thing. We give them different names only because we sense and measure them using different ways. Any change in one seen will produce or be caused by a change in the other.

If you look at the electric field of a point charge from any angle you the same field (shape - all lines radiating from a central point until they reach another point charge of different value).
If you look at the magnetic field of a magnet from the polar perspective you will see the same as the above electric field.

'Magnetic field' is simply another name for an electric field with curl.

If you really wish to see the only example of a true magnetic monopole consider the magnetic field around a straight piece of wire carrying DC. There are no poles, only direction and spin that doesn't change unless the electric current changes direction.

This is a bit deep but explains some thoughts on the subject. http://www.electrostatics.org/images/C4.pdf

North & South poles of any magnet are only a human construct. They are only references devised by us so we could better explain what we saw.

Further more, I don't believe there is such thing as negative and positive charges. There are only variations of charge, none, low, high. The high charge always goes to the place where low charge exists. Or, higher energy always moves to the place where low energy is. Good luck finding any place or thing with absolutely zero charge. All charge is relative but there is no place or thing with absolutely no charge. Any positive charge is simply less charge than the negative charge associated with it.

Nature abhors imbalance.

So, if you had two magnetic monopoles they would try to join while having equal velocity and direction. ( A bit like gravity, isn't it  )
If they had a velocity and direction difference between them and they crossed paths, they would repel each other most energetically where their paths crossed but there would not be attraction.
If both were completely without velocity there would be no interaction between them, at all. Since this is impossible (everything is always moving with some relative velocity) we will never see them.

Everything I stated in the previous three sentences also describes point charges. Why? Because a point charge is a magnetic monopole.

Many of these constructs only created by us are also considered to be constants so, welcome if you get your feet wet on these subjects. It can be rough weather in here  


All above are my opinions and the opinions of many others.

[TinMan]

It would seem if they were the same monopole and a true monopole they could be arranged in a repulsion mode so their would be no 'sticky point' and thus a circular arrangement could spin.   

tinman, do you have something in mind that could be a magnetic diode?  Mu-metal box?  Halbach array?

Hi E2matrix
This is exactly what i was refering to when i said-some say that if they had monopole magnets,they could make an all magnet motor run.
So how would your setup work?,and what would it look like?.Bipolar magnets can be arranged so as they repel only,so how would a monopole be any different?.How can you get rotation out of two repelling magnets,when the repulsion is just as strong in both directions?.

I have heard this many time's,but as of yet i have not seen one example that would work.
As far as a magnetic diode go's,i have never even thought about it until ION mentioned it-but i will give it some thought now.

[TinMan]

Hi WW.
I have taken two quotes from a couple of your post,as i think there is more to it than that of which you said.

Quote1-Magnetic monopoles would not attract or repulse even ferrous materials because attraction/repulsion is due to the fact that magnetic lines of force always seek the shortest path and completion of the loop.

Quote 2-If you really wish to see the only example of a true magnetic monopole consider the magnetic field around a straight piece of wire carrying DC. There are no poles, only direction and spin that doesn't change unless the electric current changes direction.

Now here is why i think there is more.If we run a straight wire between two steel plates and apply a DC current through the wire,the two steel plates will become magnetically joined(stuck together).So if monopoles do not attract or repulse,and a straight wire carring DC current is a true magnetic monopole-then how do the steel plates become magnetic?.Do the two plates now have a single rotating magnetic pole that allows them to be attracted together that cannot be detected from the outer edges of the two plate's?.
You will also notice that a straight piece of wire with a DC current passing through it will be attracted to ferrous material's.So either a straight piece of wire with a DC current passing through it is not a true monopole,or monopole's are attracted to ferrous material's.

I am glad that some are putting forth there thoughts on this,as the simple magnet has many secrets

[BEP]

So either a straight piece of wire with a DC current passing through it is not a true monopole,or monopole's are attracted to ferrous material's.

You got me there  

I should have defined 'from the wire's perspective'.

In the theoretical magnetic monopole all field lines radiate outwards (or inwards) and never reconnect to the monopole. If that reconnection doesn't exist the field lines cannot close or compress upon themselves. Without that compression upon itself there can be no attraction because that is the reason there is attraction (speaking in terms of 'magnetic' not the actual action of electric field curl.)

Like I said:

It can be rough weather in here   

With a different perspective 3D can be no more volumetric than what most consider a volume contained in 2D space.

[Allcanadian]

@WW

In the theoretical magnetic monopole all field lines radiate outwards (or inwards) and never reconnect to the monopole. If that reconnection doesn't exist the field lines cannot close or compress upon themselves. Without that compression upon itself there can be no attraction because that is the reason there is attraction (speaking in terms of 'magnetic' not the actual action of electric field curl.)

In theory there are no field lines any more than there would be lines of pressure with an increasing depth of water, there is a uniform gradient of force due to external interactions. The first mistake here is in thinking an apparently empty space is nothing when we have already defined it through it's properties. We have defined the "field" as a property of space not a property of matter thus if we want to understand what the field actually is fundamentally then that space is the most likely place to start looking. When you understand what the primary fields are in reality, fundamentally, then all this silly talk of lines and attractions and curl will become completely foreign to us.
How can we say we understand something and not know what it actually is fundamentally?.

AC

[BEP]

How can we say we understand something and not know what it actually is fundamentally?.

Then we understand nothing 

I use terms like 'field lines', plus and minus charge, North Pole, South Pole, electron flow(being current flow), etc. because those are what folks understand, not because I believe they exist.

[TinMan]

What we must understand is that we explain things with terms given by man, which may not be reality it self. Like WW said- we use terms and descriptions that all understand.

Now getting back to the direction I hoped the thread would go in-.If we had say a cube magnet 10 x10x10mm square, and it had only north or south fields on all faces- how would this help in making an all magnet motor?
And WW- do you believe this magnet with only one exposed field would be attracted to ferrous materials? I would think the answer would be yes, but time will tell.

[exnihiloest]

One might also consider that the key to free energy would be to totally prevent the looping in a PM from occurring. Shunting concentrates looping, not what we want.

Then one would build charge on each pole. This would require a dielectric insulator between two halves of a PM, and a means to counter rotate rotate each half at relatavistic speeds. (of course an impossibility).

This is an interesting proposition, because it's known that the end of a long ordinary magnet is the closest thing to a monopole, a sort of fountain of field lines. Experiments should be led with long and thin cylindrical magnets (even if I have read nowhere that the Dirac monopole would imply free energy).

[BEP]

And WW- do you believe this magnet with only one exposed field would be attracted to ferrous materials? I would think the answer would be yes, but time will tell.

Such magnets are available.

Yes, they attract ferrous metals.

Unfortunately, the other pole does leak out enough to make the difference. They are said to be imperfect so they aren't monopoles.

[TinMan]

I am a bit lost as to why people say there are no field lines,where the magnetic field seems to clearly show field lines when using iron filings.

[Paul-R]

I am a bit lost as to why people say there are no field lines,where the magnetic field seems to clearly show field lines when using iron filings.

Ah ! I reckon I know the answer to this. It came up at  Patrick's 2008 UK Free Energy Conference.

The Howard Johnson motor could not work if the field lines werer thus. This applies to other devices. The lines leave the pole as described and are thought to bend round much more tightly and come in at the Bloch wall halfway between the poles or nearer their own poles.

The iron filings test shows what happens if you sprinkle thousands of bar magnets over the field. i.e. the filings alter the reality of the normal field, and give an inaccurate reading.

[BEP]

There are a lot of folks having inaccurate understandings simply due to choices and experiments made hundreds of years ago.

An easy way to see why lines appear when using iron filings is to take two identical bar magnets and place them side by side with like poles facing the same direction.
You will see they don't like that arrangement an repel each other when aligned perfectly. The same thing happens with adjacent iron filings. They repel each other.

Since each little magnet is in attraction with the others in line with their poles and side by side magnets repel each other, lines are formed. These lines are a property of the iron filing alignments not the magnet field.

If you can get your hands on iron flecks with uniform rectangular shape you will see the filings do the same but with a difference. They all stand on one end on one side of the magnet and on the other end on the other side of the magnet. The angle varies with field strength.

Remove all the filings and the magnetic field returns to its natural state - no lines.

The same can be seen for electric fields using electrostatic sensitive dust or powders. Lines will form. Electrostatic sensitive flecks, similar to the ones described above, will also stand on one end.

The only place I know that such material can be found is from auto paint shops.

[Allcanadian]

@tinman
Here is a picture to explain what is happening with our iron filings. In frame 1 we can see the basic forces at work, magnets on a vertical axis attract and magnets on a horizontal axis repel. Like poles repel and unlike poles attract, I say poles so everyone knows what I am talking about.

In frame 2 we see a permanent magnet which has induced a magnetic field in our gray iron filings or iron cores which is called "Magnetic Induction". Notice all the iron filings have been induced with a polarity opposite to the permanent magnet, this is because the permanent magnet is the predominant field which has induced each of the individual iron filings.

In frame 3 we see the forces pushing the filings apart on the horizontal axis which is also aligning them on the vertical axis. They are not aligning with some imaginary lines of force they are simply attracting and repelling from the other iron filings with their own induced magnetic fields. Here is an experiment, take two iron rods or bolts and align them parallel to one another on a table. Next move a permanent magnet near the rods from the top, What happens?, they move away from one another because the induced like poles at each end repel one another.

In frame 4 we see the iron filings have repelled from one another on any horizontal axis and attracted to one another on the vertical axis. On the vertical axis the like poles have moved towards one another -- Attraction. Each line of filings attracted to one another vertically also repels every other line of filings because we have like poles opposite one another like this.

Repulsion

N   N
S   S


Attraction

N
S

N
S

Again I must say that it is amazing that a process so fundamentally simple and taught in every high school textbook could lead to so much confusion. It is also important to understand that the fields and forces we know exist in 1" pieces of iron wire in a magnetic field do not magically cease to exist or contradict the laws of physics just because the wires get smaller such as iron filings. The laws of physics still apply it is just that they apply in a way we did not expect.

The picture below is a better representation of the field gradient and was taken from this website, http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n5/covers/largecover.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n5/covers/index.html&usg=__CC5zAf9tMp8lyQIozpVNzLkL7qI=&h=577&w=440&sz=91&hl=en&start=32&zoom=1&tbnid=koSW6CvVHf4zRM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=102&ei=HmUbUtKwBaTl4AP6rYAY&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dvisualization%2Bmagnetic%2Bfield%26start%3D20%26um%3D1%26sa%3DN%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CEEQrQMwCzgU.
Imagine that ... some 50 years after Howard Johnson was labelled a quack Nature magazine publishes an article proving he was correct.

AC

[BEP]

We should use the last image supplied by AC as an indicator of the shape of a magnetic field not modified by magnetic material within the field. But, the text attached to that image, on the originating web site, is that it is a display of how energetic particles are affected by the magnetic field, not the shape of the field.

Unfortunately, the image isn't an indicator that the field actually has an hour-glass like shape. Looking at the middle/narrow part, it shows that the moving neutrons are deflected less. This could only be true if the magnetic field shape fits the classic description. The middle (equatorial) part of the field has less density (field lines are farther apart   ) so the neutrons are deflected less than they are near the magnet's poles.

I have performed a very similar experiment to map out magnetic fields using sensors and equipment that have almost no effect upon the measured field, very similar to the work H.J. did (custom computer program writing data to a database - converting the data to images in MS Excel, etc.)

While most of the results were the same as H.J.'s claims, there was no indication that each dipole field was made up of more than one set of loops. The most important parts I found, was that magnetic fields do not cross each other, fields interact with each other, the density, shape and twist of one is affected by another and all magnetic fields are simply distortions within an ambient field.

None of that last part is accepted but by a very few.

I have the opinion that the 'dual vortex view' of a magnetic field layout was simply misinterpretation of measurements taken of the Earth's magnetic field in very early investigations. They probably didn't know that the Earth's field can and usually does have more than one North/South pole and these magnetic points change position as time goes on.

[Allcanadian]

@Wacewatcher

all magnetic fields are simply distortions within an ambient field.

You may be the only person I have found that may find agreement with a theory I developed maybe 10 years ago. The three primary fields cannot be reconciled because they were never something in themselves only a distortion of something already present and no it is not the Aether. The common belief is like saying an orange which starts oscillating must become an apple which is absurd.

Personally I find it comical that so many people who suppose to understand everything cannot answer my simple questions. I ask them what is the Magnetic, Electric and Gravic fields fundamentally?, I am not asking what they do nor how they act I am asking what they are. I have never met nor heard of one single person who can answer my simple question. When I ask them my question I see no confidence in them I see hesitation then fear, lol.

Maybe you and I should start a new chapter in this book unfolding in front of us?. Make no mistake this is easy and obvious however a person has to let go of what we have been told and think for ourselves. Innovators do not repeat what everyone else has done they take what is know and apply it in ways nobody else has considered. There is no mystery here and all the fundamental laws we know still apply only the context has changed.

I guess the ultimate question is if a person is willing to believe a field of force can miraculously appear from nothing and act through a distance consisting of nothing then what are they willing to believe?. Maybe I could sell them some of my ocean front property in Arizona, it has a wonderful view, lol.

AC

[TinMan]

@AC Quote: Again I must say that it is amazing that a process so fundamentally simple and taught in every high school textbook could lead to so much confusion.
I think maybe you your self AC need to look a little deeper.
I see absolutely no point in looking at an uninterrupted magnetic field. The field needs to be seen for what it is,and how it is,when in use. There is no point in seeing or understanding a magnetic field that is not in use,or not being altered by the material of the machine that includes that magnetic field.

As can be seen,iron filings change the characteristics of that field.so once the iron filings are within that magnetic field,we do indeed form field line's by the interaction of the filings them self,and the magnetic field.
When a magnet is used in a generator,the field shape of that magnet will once again change every time it passes the generator's coil core. Even different loads placed on the generator will change the shape of the field's. What would a iron laminated core's field look like ,having many separate laminates that are insulated from each other,and have a small gap between each laminate from the insulating lacquer.

It's all well and good to be able to boast how you know exactly how and what the magnetic field looks like when uninterupted-but what good is a magnet sitting on a plank of wood?. What needs to be know,is what happens to that field,and how it reacts when we are actually using it for something.

So you have shown a bare magnets field,and i have shown pics of what happens to that field,when in use-by means of placing iron filings within that field.So in this situation,there is lines of force being imposed within that field. So is the magnetic filed stronger along the line's formed by the iron filings,or between the line's of filings?.What is clear ,is that your field is no longer uniform,and dose indeed now have lines of different forces.

There is no point in having a boat,if you ain't going to put it into the water.

[BEP]

We should keep in-mind and understand one of the problems in speaking of lines in a field.

Field lines are an imaginary construct used to show variations of something about that area or field. Indeed, they are used to show concentration of magnetic field density. But, they do not actually exist whether iron filings are in the field or not.

What does exist are lines of aligned magnets (filings). Like any magnet, each concentrates magnetic density at each pole. Using the concept of field lines, lines would be drawn being compressed and focused into the pole of the little magnets.

Faraday (the originator of 'lines of force' relating to magnets and electrostatics) thought that actual lines of force existed. There has been some recent work that may wind up proving that concept. He didn't start talking about 'fields' until his late work.

So yes, Lines of concentrated magnetic force form in the space between one magnet and another; Be it a piece of iron filing or an individual layer of core lamination.

With a magnet lying on a piece of wood and no magnetic material between it and the nearest magnet there would be no measurable magnetic lines of force but the magnetic force density would still be depicted using field lines or color gradients or any other method able to show variations of density.

What it all boils down to is that it is almost always easier and less problematic if we just pretend the imaginary field lines exist. The question I wonder about is what if this easy way out is one of the reasons there has been no progress in this 'field' 

[TinMan]

@ WW
Finally some one that puts the field into use,insted of just looking at a static field.
We need to know what that field is doing within a device,not just have the PM sitting there looking pretty.
ION said a little back in this topic-what about stooping the two fields merging-or something to that effect.
Well,i have been trying something very similar to that suggestion,but insted i have taken that idea,and changed it a little.
So much time is spent on these wonderful magnet motors by people trying to switch,curve or eliminate the PM's field to gain an unequal force. But none have tried using the PM's to neutralize the attraction steel or iron has to a PM.
Quote WW: The question I wonder about is what if this easy way out is one of the reasons there has been no progress in this 'field'

Couldn't be said better WW,but it is not the missunderstanding about field line's,but more that people spend so much time trying to explain how a PM's static field looks. Like i said,that will do us no good when we place that PM to use on a device of some sort. What we need to know is how the field is changed while being used in that device.
So trying to map the field with tools that don't effect the field,is really useless,when the device that the PM is to be used in will change the characteristics of that field.