turning a permanent magnet on and off and harnessing the flux change for power

[david]

Hello people of the OUR forum,

i come with a highly theoretically but still simple idea about how to turn a permanent magnet on and off. I tried to find topics where this idea might already be talked about but i coudnt find any so if someone here can identify a similar idea i would like him/her to relay this information to me so i can find answers why there's no working free energy generator out there already
(to be honest - i broke my brain around the practical problems. there are too many god damn atoms in even the smallest magnet to turn every magnetic atom on and off with the idea im going to propose but lets just start theoretically)

permanent magnets
they work because quantum physics says every part of an atom (electrons, protons, neutrons) is a tiny magnet. electrons whizzing around the nucleus of an atom in probability clouds also create a tiny magnet (actually they create the bulk of the tiny magnet i was told by youtube videos). then there is also the orientation of said electrons in all the different and weird probability clouds that "can be" depending of the "size" of the atom. so if you add up all those effects you get atoms with bigger and smaller magnets but they have all one thing in common - the electron.

the electron is the common culprit that creates the bulk of the magnetic field of an atom (i'm looking at you iron). so what if we just temporary strip electrons from those atoms that have a net magnetic field until they dont? what i'm imagining is a permanent magnet that is also a big capacitor where we can strip the electrons from the magnetic material thus turning the magnet off. now we connect the capacitor to some coil to make an oscillating circuit and we have a permanent magnet that turns itself off and on. pulling away the electrons costs us energy but we also create a dip in the magnetic flux. the magnetic field is purely generated by quantum effects so maybe there is a chance to harness the flux change for free. the oscillating circuit is something we have to deal with and it's natural losses (ideally with the gains from the flux change of the magnet and some extra; perpetual motion of the first kind; yay). well - here the practical problems also start to kick in. you can't strip a permant magnet of all its electrons that contribute to the magnetic field cause there are just too many of them. you get absurd electric charge numbers if you try to remove even one electron from every atom in "magnet-sized" piece of iron. when you look at pictures of the electron configuration of iron with the up and down arrows you can assume that you have to remove even more electrons from the atom to completely shut down its magnetic field so it becomes even more unrealistic. i found this neat website that shows all the up and down arrows for all the elements https://www.seilnacht.com/Lexikon/psval.htm
just click on one element and it shows the electron configuration on the left side. Alot of parallel arrows mean highly magnetic. anti parallel arrows mean tiny magnets cancel each other out so no net field.

if any of this makes sense could some smart guy/gal put this into some calculations or simulations to see what could be expected/measured in a real setting?

thank you very much for reading.

with kind regards
David

[unimmortal]

Dave, I don't think magnets come with an off switch, but I like you're thinking. My first fidget spinner pulse motor was based on static magnets, coils on top and a spinning rotor with PM's. The coil would simultaneously suppress the static pm underneath, while repelling the rotor pm spinning above.

If you want to turn things off and on, start with an electromagnet.

[Smudge]

If you examine the BH characteristic of square loop material you will realize that the two B values at H=0 represent a permanent magnet that can be switched between two states.  So we do have a means to switch magnets, to reverse their polarity.  The area of the BH loop represents an energy density that when multiplied by the volume of the magnet gives you the energy you must supply to reverse it.  Switching a magnet takes energy, a significant amount of energy.  Add to that the resistive losses in the coil.  Note that the ampere-turns needed to create the switching H value is hugely more for a bar magnet than for the same amount of material in a ring because of the need to dtive B through the air, so the coil loss is significant.  As the previous reply says, use an electromagnet that uses soft ferromagnetic material.

Smudge

[david]

good evening everyone,

i'm aware that you can switch the polarity of a magnet with a high enough magnetic pulse but that's not the goal (and i know it would cost energy/require work to do that).

what can we agree on when i say "let's turn the magnetic field off"? i'm looking at the atomic level of what makes a permanent magnet magnetic. we have an atom (iron) with its electrons whizzing around its core in those strange and hard to understand orbitals/shells (1s | 2s | 2p | 3s | 3p | 4s | 3d). iron atoms have half-filled electron shells that amplify the total magnetic field of the atom because for whatever reason the magnetic moments are aligned in those half-filled shells and iron is also ferromagnetic (i can only refer to that webside again https://www.seilnacht.com/Lexikon/psval.htm or there is also this neat youtube video that helped me understand the mechanics behind permanent magnets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXdXZ5TM)

now the most simple question that arises for me is - what happens if we just "remove" electrons from the magnetic atom until it isnt magnetic anymore? how far can we push this idea? what happens to the properties of the magnetic atom when you remove more and more electrons? now we do this to every crystal and domain (the domains are already aligned) of the material and we end up with a (brutally) electrically charged magnet that isnt magnetic anymore. but when we let the electrons flow back into the magnet the magnetic field should restore itself.

does this make it more understandable?

[Verpies]

...what happens if we just "remove" electrons from the magnetic atom until it isnt magnetic anymore?

Even if you ignore the magnetic moment of the nucleus, removing electrons from the iron metal is tantamount to ionizing it completely and turning it into a bunch of positive ions. Even if such metal could hold itself together, it would exert humongous electric Coulomb force on its surroundings.

[Smudge]

In Fe (or any conductive ferromagnetic metal) the spin hence magnetic moment of its conduction electrons contribute to its magnetization.  It is possible to remove some of these leaving the (magnetized) Fe body with a positive charge so its magnetization is then reduced by a small amount.  Pulling the spin-polarized electrons (tiny magnets) out of the magnetized FE body requires force to overcome the magnetic force pulling them back, but this is easily created by electric forces that are so much greater than magnetic forces.  I do not know of any system that uses this electric control of magnetization, but it could possibly explain some anomalous results.  The Yildiz motor uses a large number of NdFeB disc magnets glued into aluminum blocks.  If the glue acts as an electric insulator then the E field induced from the changing B field at each magnet (E=vXB) could create small changes to the otherwise constant magnetization of each magnet.  Note that once the electrons are pulled into the aluminum block they lose their polarization and only regain it when they return to the NdFeB magnet.  Is that something worth exploring?

Smudge   

[david]

hi again,

Smudge, you mentioned one thing that makes me question everything - electrons are tiny magnets. that is clearly what they said in the yt video. but does that now mean that everything with a magnetic field can just "pull" electrons? does this explain all of the fancy induction rules/formulas as well? my brain just melted a little bit. is this where the energy balance comes to zero too? pulling billions of tiny magnets from one big magnet although the strength of the magnet weakens the more tiny magnets we remove but it requires the same amount energy that we would get if we capture the energy/flux-change from when the tiny magnets return to the big magnet with 100% efficiency (which is also not possible)?

maybe its worth to point out one thing but i dont think it matters in this point of view. the magnetic field of the electron is also small in comparison to the magnetic field it generates when it is locked into orbit in an iron atom. because there is more motion and charges in motion also create a magnetic field so... wait a second

charges only have a magnetic field when they are in motion. so they are not really tiny magnets by themselves. i'm so confused right now.

does it cost extra energy to remove electrons from a conducting, magnetized piece of iron or are we just dealing with electric forces?

[AlienGrey]

Turning it on and off only way to simulate that is by using anelectro magnet and gravity to apose the field.

Sil

[david]

@Sil
but that wouldn't be something new. I wonder if you could make iron the same as activated carbon which has this crazy large surface area in the smallest space which would make it possible to get access to as many electrons as possible in a small piece of iron.

And I wonder if removing even one electron from ever iron atom in a solid would change the magnetic behavior of the iron drastically. Maybe it changes from being ferromagnetic to anti-ferromagnetic.

[chief kolbacict]

I wonder if you could make iron the same as activated carbon which has this crazy large surface area in the smallest space which would make it possible to get access to as many electrons as possible in a small piece of iron.

Yes, it's called pyrophoric iron, it even ignites spontaneously in air.
I did it for fun. 

[Smudge]

hi again,
Smudge, you mentioned one thing that makes me question everything - electrons are tiny magnets. that is clearly what they said in the yt video. but does that now mean that everything with a magnetic field can just "pull" electrons?

I think you must educate yourself on magnetic fields "pulling" magnets.  It is not the field value that does the pulling, it is the field gradient, the field must change with distance through space.  Place a magnet within a uniform magnetic field and there is no pull, only a torque that forces the magnet to align with the field.  And yes, electrons in a non uniform field will act like tiny magnets to align themselves with the field and then get pulled towards the stronger field area.  (That is if there is nothing in the way for them to collide with of course)     

does this explain all of the fancy induction rules/formulas as well?

No it does not.  Those take no account of electron spin or magnetic moment.

my brain just melted a little bit. is this where the energy balance comes to zero too?

It takes energy to pull a tiny magnet from a region of uniform field to a region where there is no field because over that movement the field must decay, that gradient creates the pull back force that has to be overcome.  The energy can be reclaimed by letting the magnet be pulled back and capturing the energy.

pulling billions of tiny magnets from one big magnet although the strength of the magnet weakens the more tiny magnets we remove but it requires the same amount energy that we would get if we capture the energy/flux-change from when the tiny magnets return to the big magnet with 100% efficiency (which is also not possible)?

Of course it is possible but what have you gained?

maybe its worth to point out one thing but i dont think it matters in this point of view. the magnetic field of the electron is also small in comparison to the magnetic field it generates when it is locked into orbit in an iron atom. because there is more motion and charges in motion also create a magnetic field so... wait a second

charges only have a magnetic field when they are in motion. so they are not really tiny magnets by themselves. i'm so confused right now.

Electrons have spin and that is angular momentum.  We don't know whether their mass is actually spinning (or whether this spin has some other source such as absorption of aether particles) but it is helpful to imagine that the mass is spinning.  The angular momentum is quantized by the Planck constant.  The electron also has a magnetic moment that is aligned with the spin so it is helpful to imagine that the electron's charge is also spinning (but that too might have an aetherial source).  A spinning spherical volume of charge has a magnetic moment (there you have the charge movement that creates its magnetic field).  The magnetic moment is in the order of the Bohr Magneton.  Orbital magnetic moments are quantized by the Bohr Magneton and angular momentum by the Planck constant.

does it cost extra energy to remove electrons from a conducting, magnetized piece of iron or are we just dealing with electric forces?

Both forces are involved but the electric forces are much greater than the magnetic ones.  Whether you can gain anything by clever use of the two different forces remains to be seen.

Smudge   

[Allcanadian]

I thought this answer from ChatGPT was interesting...

The magnetic field in iron (and other magnetic materials) is primarily due to the alignment and the movement of electrons within the atoms of the material.

In an atom, electrons have two types of motion that contribute to the magnetic properties of the material:

Spin: Electrons have an intrinsic property called "spin," which is a quantum property that can be thought of as the electron spinning around its own axis. The spin of electrons contributes to their magnetic moment.

Orbital motion: Electrons also move in orbits around the atomic nucleus. This orbital motion also contributes to the magnetic moment of the electron.

The orbital motion of electrons is easy to understand and it's similar to how electrons move in a circular path around a coil of wire. All the smaller circular motions align and add up producing a larger magnetic field.

Electron spin on it's axis seems to suggest the circular motion of the stuff the electron is made of contributes to the magnetic field. However an electron is considered an elementary particle that is not composed of smaller particles.

It seems logical that the magnetic field may not be produced by electron orbital motion but is a consequence of the motion of the electron material. The electron material produces a magnetic field whether is spins around itself or other bodies as an orbit.

Thermal vibration and mechanical impacts can also disrupt the electrons path or direction producing random motion. Random motion of the electron material and misalignment of electron orbits reduces the external magnetic field. So again were left with the notion that the electron does not produce a magnetic field per say more so how the material it's made of moves within a space.

AC

[Aking.21]

This video is food for thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AygyCYMVXlI&t=187s
Turning permanent magnets on and off with little energy.
I wonder............

[phoneboy]

This video is food for thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AygyCYMVXlI&t=187s
Turning permanent magnets on and off with little energy.
I wonder............

I guess its how you look at it? That video was just showing flux redirection.

[broli]

I believe this could be possible with super conductors. Recently I read this:

https://physicsworld.com/a/terahertz-laser-induces-room-temperature-superconducting-phase-in-a-fullerene-compound/

This is a very significant finding. A well known Super Conductor theoretical researchers who refutes BCS theory also has an interesting theory (based on findings and theories of a Russian scientists) Jorge E. Hirsch. Basically he claims that super conductivity occurs because the orbits of the electrons 'relax' andd therfore expands this has the iluusion of creating a radially outward current if we are talking about a cylinddrical shaped SC. Which explains the Meissner effect. :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAusEgByKkY

He also has some interesting papers showing that the joule heating theory of BSC below their critical temp is BS. In other words the Meissner effect and its inversion is essentially a 0 energy effect. This is significant because not only does the Meisner effect expel magnetic field it actually pushes something away with a force, we usually see this in the form of the SC overcoming gravity and start to levitate  on top of a magnet. This implies this potential energy had no cost.

Now take this new paper showing you can switch a SC on and off with very little energy using a laser and wrap a coil around this SC and stick a magnet to it. When you switch on the SC the Meisner effect causes the field to be expelled, this induces a large sudden flux change in the coil generating energy. You got yourself your free energy device.

[david]

i'm trying to make a post for the last 3 days now but there is always something that stun locks me when i try to make a response.   

Yes, it's called pyrophoric iron, it even ignites spontaneously in air.
I did it for fun. 

that sounds counter productive 

I think you must educate yourself on magnetic fields "pulling" magnets.  It is not the field value that does the pulling, it is the field gradient, the field must change with distance through space.  Place a magnet within a uniform magnetic field and there is no pull, only a torque that forces the magnet to align with the field.  And yes, electrons in a non uniform field will act like tiny magnets to align themselves with the field and then get pulled towards the stronger field area.  (That is if there is nothing in the way for them to collide with of course)

oh true. i was not aware of that anymore - there needs to be a field gradient for magnets to pull on each other. in the video i linked about how permanent magnets work there is a 2nd part that explains how normal electro magnets work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0) but they do it in special way. they use special relativity and electric forces to explain magnetic forces. everything that moves relative to you gets smushed in the direction its moving so suddenly you can have concentrations of electric charges that were not there before. i guess this works with magnets pulling on each other as well. the moving electrons inside the magnetized iron see a concentration of positive electric charges inside the other magnetized piece of iron.

It takes energy to pull a tiny magnet from a region of uniform field to a region where there is no field because over that movement the field must decay, that gradient creates the pull back force that has to be overcome.  The energy can be reclaimed by letting the magnet be pulled back and capturing the energy.

okay but how can you account for thatwhen it comes to energy input/output. the intial idea was to "capture" energy from the magnetic flux dip when you remove electrons from a magnetic atom. so you put in some work to remove an electron from an iron atom and in return you get some magnetic field change. the electron is the main contributer to the magnetic field of the atom. you have the magnetic field of the electron spin and you have magnetic field from the orbital motion. both disappear from the atom when you remove the electron. of course removing only one electron from an iron atom still leaves you with the other half-filled electron shells that do create an external field which you would have to overcome. the most extrem example would be to remove all the electrons from half-filled shells and only the full shells remain (magnetic fields of full shells cancel each other out). so now the magnetic field is basically zero and you dont have to work against it. and the electric energy you just used to remove the electron from the atom is preservered as much as possible in an oscillating circuit. the practical outcome would be to capture the magnetic flux change in the coil of the oscillating circuit itself so maybe the oscillation starts to swing up.

This video is food for thought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AygyCYMVXlI&t=187s
Turning permanent magnets on and off with little energy.
I wonder............

i saw devices like that but i dont see how you can gain more energy from it than you have to put in by opening the "flux-circuit" although... i can never tell how much energy you can actually gain from flux changes in the first place... there is always the principle of... induction and counter induction/counter torque... a rotor of a generator pushing against the magnetic field of the stator coils it just induced power in when the stator circuit is closed...

my brain is really bad at picturing how those things but - scratch that. i found it. a neat simulation that shows and animates everything about induction, winding direction, current flow! this thing has been on the internet for ages but it slips and reconnects to my brain in unpredictable ways

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/cheerpj/faraday/latest/faraday.html?simulation=faraday

i used the transformer tab to visualize what the idea should look like. in the simulation you have a battery with electrons flowing inside a coil and a secondary induction coil. you could compare this with the electrons "flowing" inside a permanent magnet. so now we remove the electrons from the magnet so the magnetic field gets weaker and weaker (in the simulation you move the voltage slider to reduce the voltage) causing an induction current in the second coil. this current amplifies the current magnetic field.

well - now i'm not sure what that means for the electrons we try to remove. also the counter induction thing should kick in and... now i feel like getting stun locked again. someone take over please

counter induction should make it harder for electrons to flow inside the electromagnet/battery circuit but this cant affect electrons flowing inside atom orbitals right?

[Smudge]

i'm trying to make a post for the last 3 days now but there is always something that stun locks me when i try to make a response.   

that sounds counter productive 

oh true. i was not aware of that anymore - there needs to be a field gradient for magnets to pull on each other. in the video i linked about how permanent magnets work there is a 2nd part that explains how normal electro magnets work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0) but they do it in special way. they use special relativity and electric forces to explain magnetic forces. everything that moves relative to you gets smushed in the direction its moving so suddenly you can have concentrations of electric charges that were not there before. i guess this works with magnets pulling on each other as well. the moving electrons inside the magnetized iron see a concentration of positive electric charges inside the other magnetized piece of iron.

No you have got that wrong with regard to magnets pulling on each other.  The aligned spins (mostly orbits) responsible for the magnetization create the magnetic B field of the magnet that reduces in amplitude with distance, hence there is a magnetic gradient applied to the other magnet.  Let us assume the magnet is aligned with x, then each of the spins (orbits in fixed atoms) in the other magnet (also aligned with x) of magnetic moment mu obey a force law F = mu*dB/dx.  There is no concentration of charges needed for this.  In Fe where there are mobile conduction electrons they also have spin that will align themselves (along x in this case) so they get a force driving them along x, and then you do get some charge separation so the pole closest to the other magnet gets a negative charge (surfeit of electrons) while the furthest pole gets a positive charge (surfeit of positive ions}.  This small effect is not generally recognized and may be of no use, but I have suggested that a deliberate electric polarization of a Fe magnet might be a means for getting OU.  This is not switching a PM on and off but is a magneto-electric effect that might be of use to FE researchers.

okay but how can you account for thatwhen it comes to energy input/output. the intial idea was to "capture" energy from the magnetic flux dip when you remove electrons from a magnetic atom. so you put in some work to remove an electron from an iron atom and in return you get some magnetic field change. the electron is the main contributer to the magnetic field of the atom. you have the magnetic field of the electron spin and you have magnetic field from the orbital motion. both disappear from the atom when you remove the electron. of course removing only one electron from an iron atom still leaves you with the other half-filled electron shells that do create an external field which you would have to overcome. the most extrem example would be to remove all the electrons from half-filled shells and only the full shells remain (magnetic fields of full shells cancel each other out). so now the magnetic field is basically zero and you dont have to work against it. and the electric energy you just used to remove the electron from the atom is preservered as much as possible in an oscillating circuit. the practical outcome would be to capture the magnetic flux change in the coil of the oscillating circuit itself so maybe the oscillation starts to swing up.

You can't willy nilly remove electrons from atoms.  To remove electrons from the inner shells you have to supply high energy photons (X rays) to knock one out and that creates other movements of electrons to refill the vacant shells giving off photons at other frequencies.  Not quite within the capabilities of your FE experimenter.

i used the transformer tab to visualize what the idea should look like. in the simulation you have a battery with electrons flowing inside a coil and a secondary induction coil. you could compare this with the electrons "flowing" inside a permanent magnet. so now we remove the electrons from the magnet so the magnetic field gets weaker and weaker (in the simulation you move the voltage slider to reduce the voltage) causing an induction current in the second coil.

Flux change causes an induced voltage, not a current.  To get a current you must have a load present and then you have a current that is at 90 degrees phase to the flux 

this current amplifies the current magnetic field.

No because it is not in phase with the flux.  Lenz's law tells you that the current will oppose the change of flux, that is ceratinly not an amplification.

well - now i'm not sure what that means for the electrons we try to remove. also the counter induction thing should kick in and... now i feel like getting stun locked again. someone take over please

counter induction should make it harder for electrons to flow inside the electromagnet/battery circuit but this cant affect electrons flowing inside atom orbitals right?

It is not productive imagining something that you can't do, so forget the atomic orbits.  Concentrate on something you can do, like having a Fe magnet with electrodes on each pole over a thin dielectric so you can polarise it electrically by applying a high voltage to the electrodes.  Now you have some weak (possibly too weak?) control of its field.  Put that into a motor system that uses a stator magnet to attract a rotor magnet using your magneto-electric control to make the attraction greater than the repulsion.

Smudge   

[chief kolbacict]

There was person who have done it.
https://tedmagnetics.com/
At least as it was announced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D
At least this concept fascinated me at the time.

[T-1000]

Hi guys

As it happens I did experiments with magnetic flux path switching for MEG in past, here are some insights from my experience.
You can create 2 paths with one less slightly less resistant with magnetic flux switching coil on it than another path and use very little energy when creating LC resonant circuit with that electromagnet. This is quite straight forward.

However, when magnetic flux path switches and you have pick up coil to make induction I had a problem.
When magnetic flux path switches it happens very quickly in nanoseconds range and most common problem is how to make proper induction on the pickup coil which magnetic flux pass through when switched.
The typical coil will lag behind against such fast magnetic flux strength change. If you can tackle this problem and make special coils fast enough (possible flat coils from tape for added capacity?) to pick up the magnetic flux change or special materials to slow down rate of magnetic flux change you will get results you are looking for.

P.S> From conventional physics point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction "The electromotive force around a closed path is equal to the negative of the time rate of change of the magnetic flux enclosed by the path" is exactly on the point here to make power from magnets.

Cheers!

[david]

I don't understand. Can't you just remove an arbitrary number of electrons from a small enough sample size with a large enough electric field? We have ionizing energies in mol down to the bare iron atom. Can't we translate this to an electric field that would achieve the same goal? The ,,stripping" energy needs to be captured in some way so x-rays are never an option. The energy needs to be between the iron atoms and some other metal but maybe the iron itself would just disintegrated if too many electrons are removed.

what would be the upper limit that we can remove? I do have some suspicion that removing one electron from an iron atom turns it magnetically into something like chromium because the first electron that is removed through an electric field would be taken from the filled 4s-shell. The iron gets even more half filled shells just like chromium but that makes it completely anti-ferromagnetic. What would be the setup to try those things?

I can only look at that link again that shows electron configurations.

[unimmortal]

When magnetic flux path switches it happens very quickly in nanoseconds range and most common problem is how to make proper induction on the pickup coil which magnetic flux pass through when switched.
The typical coil will lag behind against such fast magnetic flux strength change. If you can tackle this problem and make special coils fast enough (possible flat coils from tape for added capacity?) to pick up the magnetic flux change or special materials to slow down rate of magnetic flux change you will get results you are looking for.

Hall sensor? the ugn3503 I use is around 37ns + delay. It'll mean adding in a 5V circuit to support though.

[T-1000]

Hi all,

From my previous MEG eperimentation here is concept below to control magnetiic flux of magnets. You might consider to try build one.
Also I could use some advice about where I could source 5-10mm wide insulated iron foil for the output coil.

P.S> The good read from previous magnetic flux switching experiments - https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1000&context=eecs_fac

Cheers!

[Smudge]

I do have some suspicion that removing one electron from an iron atom turns it magnetically into something like chromium

No, it is still iron but now it is a positive ion.  The iron nucleus has more protons than the chromium nucleus.
Smudge

[stivep]

...

[MerLynn]

Allen from Philosophy.org gave me a 'pen' that could detect the North Pole Field of any magnet with a light indicator. He wanted me to give it to JoeCell as a present.

So on my next visit, I handed it to Joe and he said to keep it cause he didnt need it. But its a present Joe.

So Joe picked up a magnet and used the pen and every time he held it to the magnet's N it either lite up and the next time didnt light up North Pole. He did this repeatedly to prove his point.
Joe can Flip the poles by Touch.
In another demo he took to magnets and holding them close together for a second the Field Just Collapsed in each magnet leaving a couple lumps of ferrite. Then doing the reverse they became magnetic again.

Magnets are not what they say they are.
Back to the drawing board.

Many have seen Joe flip the Polarity of the Battery in the car making the 'spark' to the spark plug the wrong polarity and no matter how you crank the engine over it will not start.

In another demo, the battery was flat from the lights being left on. To start the car a COIL was placed between the 2 terminals of the Battery so the Other Side of the Battery was now active and in an second of turning the key,. the engine started. Batteries also arent what you think they are.

Understanding these two NON PHYSICAL Phenomena will upwise humans immensely.