On the notion of a magnetic motor

[poynt99]

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).

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?

[poynt99]

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.

[TinMan]

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.

[TinMan]

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

[bistander]

6- And the big one--what is the magnetic field?

Brad.

Hi Brad,

Here Richard Feynman gives his attempt:

4. 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

[bistander]

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

[TinMan]

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

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

I have watched the interview many times, and he made only one attempt to explain the magnetic field--

It'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

[poynt99]

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?

[picowatt]

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.

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.   

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. 

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. 

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.   

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...

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.
   

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

[bistander]

Hi Brad,

Do 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

[TinMan]

author=bistander link=topic=4661.msg112274#msg112274 date=1716211632

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.

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 ?)

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.

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

[TinMan]

author=picowatt link=topic=4661.msg112273#msg112273 date=1716209883

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.

I am referring to your post-post 172
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?

This 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

[bistander]

Brad,
I understand that F = m × a.
bi

edit: that is the missing part of your A, B, C, D car pushing example.

[TinMan]

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

[picowatt]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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. 

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?

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

[bistander]

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.

[picowatt]

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

[Allcanadian]

Tinman

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

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

[chief kolbacict]

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
And how this vehicle move faster?

[Verpies]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[poynt99]

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).

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?

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.

I already had a discussion about this with the late MarkE on this forum - he lost.

Please provide a link to said discussion. Thanks.

[TinMan]

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

[TinMan]

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

[bistander]

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

[bistander]

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