PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-28, 07:54:55
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
Author Topic: On the notion of a magnetic motor  (Read 22870 times)
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
Hundreds of years of observation, measurements, and even Eilenstines general theory of relativity states that gravitational forces should see the universe contract, and yet it expands with increasing speed.
Science now says there must be another force involve, which they call dark energy. Yet to be found or observed, but sound evidence it must exist.

Yes, and I believe that eventually they will find what Faraday, Thomson, and Maxwell might have worked out, had they hung out on the porch and had a few beers together.  But what part of this supports your two field claim?

Quote
But it does. It is a charge separation, where like charges repel, and unlike charges attract, just as electrical charges do.

No, it doesn't explain what a magnetic field is, anymore than your comparisons to electric charges explains what an electric field is.  You are suggesting something of opposite polarity is emitted at opposing ends of a magnet, a theory considered since the discovery of the lodestone, but what the actual field "is" or "is not" made of, is not answered by your two field theory.  Do you know what this "charge" you speak of actually is?  Is it electrical, gravitational, unknown, etc?

Quote
As the outcomes results in the very same outcomes to that of the single field theory, then it is just as verified as the single field theory.

I have questions regarding this.  I'll discuss in a different post;

Quote
As we did with the photon, so as we could work out how a solar panels works.
The photon was only theorized back in 1905 by Einstein, and he called it light quanta.

Again, the idea of "something opposite" at each end of a magnet is as old as the discovery of lodestones.  Just like we did with regard to the photon and the photoelectric effect, science worked gained a better understanding of the field conditions surrounding a PM.

Quote
Yes, equal and opposite charges.

Again, this does not tell us what a magnetic field is, anymore than the single field theory does.  Now instead of one "charge" of some sort, we have two, But what the magnetic field is actually made of is, in my opinion, unexplained by either concept.

Quote
Yes they can, and i have shown an example of this.

Although sought after for years using all manner of detection, magnetic monopoles have yet to be discovered.  Redirecting the field of a magnet or magnets so that it "appears" to be a monopole, or burying one pole in a sphere, is not the same as a monopole.  In your electrical charges comparison, we can readily isolate particles, ions, etc, that have a single charge, a monopole of sorts.  To date, this cannot be done with regard to a magnet.  Even at the single atom scale, the magnetic field appears to be unidirectional as convention indicates. 

 
Quote
The opposite charges attract, not repel.

I get what you are saying, but again, you are defining a property or action, but not what the field actually is.  Why do opposites attract and like repel? (I mispoke originally).

In your charged capacitor drawing, why is there no null indicated in the center of its field?  What is different about your proposed charges that cause them to produce a null in the middle of the magnet?

Quote
No, we should discard nothing, as the two theories work the same.

As stated, I have a question about this.

Quote
No.
I have provided other examples on this thread.

I must have missed the other experiments you posted that support the two field theory.

Quote
Odd how earths whole magnetic field rejects/deflects most of these charged particles, and at no point in the field attracts them- see pic below.
And how exactly does a molten pool of metal and rock produce a nice uniform magnetic field around the earth, that looks like the magnetic field of that of a sphere PM?
How exactly are all the magnetic domains lining up in that pool of molten iron, to form this magnetic field?

You need to research this area regarding the Earth's core, their are some pretty good theories and/or explanations of the mechanisms involved.  The ionosphere and plasmasphere are of particular interest to me.

With regard to the Earth's magnetic field deflecting charged particles, thankfully, there is no "null" in the field at the magnetic equator to allow particles in. 

We recently had an incredible display of Aurora Borealis, quite the sight to see...

PW
« Last Edit: 2024-05-17, 06:53:12 by picowatt »
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
Brad,

I have a question regarding your two field theory as depicted by "FIELD GRADIENT 1.bmp in reply #102 (which I have attached below).

Using the closed fist right hand rule (fingers closed, thumb pointing in the direction of the B field vector) we would place the heel of our fist on the face of the N pole of the magnet with our thumb pointing left in the direction of the N pole vectors.  At the S pole (P in your drawing) we would place the tip of our thumb against the face of the S pole with our thumb continuing to point toward the left.  The curl of our fingers tells us which way electrons would be deflected at those two locations.

With your two pole theory, the magnet (and the right hand rule) supposedly behaves similarly because whatever the opposite "charges" are coming out of the magnet at the S pole, and even though they are flowing away from the pole, their magnetic polarity is the same as seen in the traditional sense.

OK, let's follow a field line.  At the N pole, we remove the heel of our fist from the magnet's N pole, rotate our wrist to follow the field line's hairpin curve toward the S pole, our thumb now points to the right, following the blue arrow vectors.

At the S pole, we remove the tip of our thumb from the magnet's pole and rotate our wrist to make the field line's hairpin curve toward the N pole, and again, our thumb, now points to the right.

Anywhere we position our fist between the N and S pole along a field line, the magnetic field's vectors, and our thumb, always points to the right. 

If the "magnetic polarity" is the same all along the field lines, what is actually cancelling in the center to produce your proposed null?

Consider your charged capacitor drawing of a few posts back, do you propose the electrical field lines are also incorrect and that there should also be a null in the middle of that field as well?

PW
« Last Edit: 2024-05-17, 07:16:00 by picowatt »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Brad,

I have a question regarding your two field theory as depicted by "FIELD GRADIENT 1.bmp in reply #102 (which I have attached below).

Using the closed fist right hand rule (fingers closed, thumb pointing in the direction of the B field vector) we would place the heel of our fist on the face of the N pole of the magnet with our thumb pointing left in the direction of the N pole vectors.  .

With your two pole theory, the magnet (and the right hand rule) supposedly behaves similarly because whatever the opposite "charges" are coming out of the magnet at the S pole, and even though they are flowing away from the pole, their magnetic polarity is the same as seen in the traditional sense.

OK, let's follow a field line.  At the N pole, we remove the heel of our fist from the magnet's N pole, rotate our wrist to follow the field line's hairpin curve toward the S pole, our thumb now points to the right, following the blue arrow vectors.

At the S pole, we remove the tip of our thumb from the magnet's pole and rotate our wrist to make the field line's hairpin curve toward the N pole, and again, our thumb, now points to the right.

Anywhere we position our fist between the N and S pole along a field line, the magnetic field's vectors, and our thumb, always points to the right. 

If the "magnetic polarity" is the same all along the field lines, what is actually cancelling in the center to produce your proposed null?

Consider your charged capacitor drawing of a few posts back, do you propose the electrical field lines are also incorrect and that there should also be a null in the middle of that field as well?

PW

With the capacitor plate model. there is indeed a point in the center and around the two plates, where the charge value is neither negative or positive, but an equal value of both.

The standard model of the field shows no reason why unlike poles repel, or like poles attract.
Looking at the !man made! vectors, we see these vectors coming out of the north end, and going in the south end.
Can you explain what is coming out and going into the PM body that causes this attraction between unlike poles, and repulsion between like poles?
Do you know of any other kind of force, other than  negative and positive charges that behave like this?- and please don't say the magnetic force, as that is the force you are trying to explain.

Can i ask you this- Does the standard model of the magnetic field allow for a mono pole field around a ferromagnetic object, such as a steel sphere?
Does not the current model dictate that any magnetic object that carries a magnetic field, must have an equal and opposite field, were in current theory, the north field must be equal to. but opposite of the south field? If this is correct, then any unmagnetized ferromagnetic object placed near say the north fields of a PM, must have an equal and opposite south field-correct?
This must also mean that any unmagnetized ferromagnetic object will always be attracted to a PMs field-right.
Does the current field theory allow for an unmagnetized ferromagnetic object to be repelled by the field of a PM?
I have a video that i made years back, showing a steel ball being repelled by a magnetic field.

If we use the two field theory, it is clearly explained as to why that steel ball can be repelled by a magnetic field.

The reason we never use the field between the two poles, for things like electric motors and generators, is because that part of the field is neutral--it cant deliver any sort of useful work.

I am all ears if you can explain as to what the field is, and how it makes like poles repel, and unlike poles attract.
The two field theory explains that, and more, like the field being able to repel a steel ball.
And just because i don't know exactly what this charged field is around the PM body, and through all space, does not mean it does not exist.
You can't explain as to what the field is around a PM body, that exerts these forces either. Does that mean we dismiss the current field theory?
Telling me that it exerts a force on a charge is not telling me what is exerting a force on that charge.
Ask anyone here what exerts a force on a charge in an electric field, and we can all give an accurate answer.
Ask that same question about the magnetic field, and we get--well we don't know yet, but the model is correct.

Quote
At the S pole (P in your drawing) we would place the tip of our thumb against the face of the S pole with our thumb continuing to point toward the left.  The curl of our fingers tells us which way electrons would be deflected at those two locations

So we know what places a force on an electron within an electric field.
I want to know what places a force on the electron in the magnetic field.
When some one asks how a train pulls the carriages, you don't answer by saying-the train pulls the carriages.
I need to know what the engine is, and how it works.

See, here is my problem PW.
In the not to distant future, i am going to be asked to explain as to how something i invented works.
The problem i have is, the current magnetic field theory says the field is conservative, and that is not going to work for me.
So, i need to find a field theory that fits and works for said invention.
My current two field theory fits like a glove.
All my experiments over the past 30 odd years, point toward this two field theory being correct.
The two field theory allows for an imbalance within the fields, where it could be said that the north field can be of greater magnitude to that of the south field-an imbalance of charge-much like the asymmetric capacitor.

Here is an interesting video to watch
This guy has very high credentials
Propellantless Propulsion Device
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhsKMWOYuYo


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 143

<snip>
I have never said the fields are not there, they are just neutral- a point in the fields that can do no work, such as induction.
<snip>

I believe I have shown that you can do work there, only in the direction perpendicular to the axis (& field).
bi

ps. Thanks for posting that video in reply #153. Wow!
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee


ps. Thanks for posting that video in reply #153. Wow!

Looks like it might be the real deal this time.
Perhaps one law of physics broken- or should i say, better understood or extended upon.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
<snip>
So to be clear, the value of the field entering the core of an inductor at the mid point of the PMs field between poles, is the exact same value of the field exiting the core at the same point, meaning that the net value of the field within the core is 0? If so, is this not a neutral point within the field as i have claimed?, where the field cannot provide a net induced field into the core of the coil.
<snip>
Brad

Brad,
What you say applies anywhere in the field per Gauss's Law.
bi

Quote
Gauss's Law for Magnetic Field
The net magnetic flux 舍B through any closed surface is equal to zero: ∮ B · dA = 0. There are no magnetic charges. Magnetic field lines always close in themselves. No matter how the (closed) Gaussian surface is chosen, the net magnetic flux through it always vanishes.

25. Gauss's law for the magnetic field. Ampere's law with applications
Gerhard Müller
University of Rhode Island, gmuller@uri.edu
Robert Coyne
University of Rhode Island, robcoyne@uri.edu

_______

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
Looks like it might be the real deal this time.
If it is then getting to Mars at constant 1 g acceleration takes just 89 hours, to Jupiter is 157 hours. It only takes a year to reach near light speed...

Breaking not included....
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Bistander
Quote
Gauss's Law for Magnetic Field
The net magnetic flux 舍B through any closed surface is equal to zero: ∮ B · dA = 0. There are no magnetic charges. Magnetic field lines always close in themselves. No matter how the (closed) Gaussian surface is chosen, the net magnetic flux through it always vanishes.

This is contradictory on several levels. How do you know "There are no magnetic charges" when you have no idea what a magnetic field is?. As well, magnetic field lines are an imaginary contrivance so it hardly matters what they do. I think it's more productive to focus on reality.

Your premise is also contradictory. Science claims magnetic and electric fields sum to zero but you seem to be implying there is no zero?. If there is no neutral point or zero then why do you keep using the term zero?. Here's a clue, let's say we measure one field value at +1 and it transitions to a second value of -1. How do you think +1 transitioned to -1?, did it just magically become the other or did it transition through every value in between the two values which includes zero?. The keyword here is "transition".

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Bistander
This is contradictory on several levels. How do you know "There are no magnetic charges" when you have no idea what a magnetic field is?. As well, magnetic field lines are an imaginary contrivance so it hardly matters what they do. I think it's more productive to focus on reality.

Your premise is also contradictory. Science claims magnetic and electric fields sum to zero but you seem to be implying there is no zero?. If there is no neutral point or zero then why do you keep using the term zero?. Here's a clue, let's say we measure one field value at +1 and it transitions to a second value of -1. How do you think +1 transitioned to -1?, did it just magically become the other or did it transition through every value in between the two values which includes zero?. The keyword here is "transition".

AC

Hi AC,
I noticed you quote Richard P. Feynman after every post. So:

Quote
ChatGPT

User
Did Richard P. Feynman teach, or support Gauss's law?

ChatGPT
Yes, Richard P. Feynman taught and supported Gauss's law. As a prominent physicist and educator, Feynman extensively covered Gauss's law in his lectures and writings. In his famous "Feynman Lectures on Physics," Gauss's law is thoroughly discussed, particularly in Volume II, which focuses on electromagnetism. Feynman explained Gauss's law in the context of electric fields, emphasizing its significance in understanding the relationship between electric charges and electric flux. He elucidated its mathematical formulation and physical implications, demonstrating how it is a fundamental principle in classical electrodynamics.

User
Thanks, bi

ChatGPT
You're welcome! If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask.

bi
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Some questions open to all (if you are so inclined):

What is a Bloch wall, how is it formed, are there degrees to which a Bloch wall forms (hint: consider angles between adjacent domains), and provide an explanation as to what extent Bloch walls are likely to form within a fully saturated rod magnet, and how such formations may impact the over all continuity of the B field inside and outside the rod magnet in terms of any non-ideal or unexpected inductive effects created within nearby coupled devices, such as a coil.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 143
Some questions open to all (if you are so inclined):

What is a Bloch wall, how is it formed, are there degrees to which a Bloch wall forms (hint: consider angles between adjacent domains), and provide an explanation as to what extent Bloch walls are likely to form within a fully saturated rod magnet, and how such formations may impact the over all continuity of the B field inside and outside the rod magnet in terms of any non-ideal or unexpected inductive effects created within nearby coupled devices, such as a coil.

Hi poynt99,
I wonder if a fully saturated PM has any Bloch walls, and don't think Bloch walls in PMs have any effects on nearby coupled devices. Domain walls in general can affect induction in a coil via the Barkhausen effect. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkhausen_effect)

Also reference my replies #3 and #26 in this thread for some definitions and information on the subject.
bi
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
See, here is my problem PW.
In the not to distant future, i am going to be asked to explain as to how something i invented works.

Then you should welcome these debates and discussions.  If I were to invent something that appeared to defy explanation using our current scientific understanding of the field surrounding a magnet, I would want to make sure I fully understand what that current scientific understanding actually is.

Scientists and engineers have produced excellent mathematical models and subsequent simulation software to the point that they can design a magnet shape or pole assembly to produce a field of just about any desired field geometry.  Many fields of science and engineering use these mathematical models and computer simulations every day to design everything from efficient motors to plasma containment.

You are up against a huge field of study that has reached a fairly high state of the art as far as being able to define and model the magnitudes and vectors anywhere in the field surrounding a magnet or magnetic assembly.

Scientists may not yet be seeing what the "field" is actually made of or in, but they have definitely worked out the math that allows accurate predictions and simulations. 

I think I understand your proposed two field theory.  The most difficult to reconcile aspect of your proposal is the stated null, canceled field, or polarity change that happens at the center of the field.  None of the above discussed modeling indicates that a null is there.   

So, if I had an invention that I believed required their to be a "null" in the field as you propose, and all of science and simulation says there is no null, I would first ask, what does the current model say about that area?.  We know it is the region of the field where the field is most homogeneous.  It is also where field lines are most parallel to the magnet's axis.  It is the area of the field where a coil can be positioned with maximum perpendicularity to the field lines for minimum induction.  Can any of these properties be shoehorned to fit into your device's theory of operation?

Have you considered having the magnetic aspects of your invention simulated with software to see if  similar results can be attained before invoking non-conventional thinking?

On a side note, I cringe every time you use the word "flow" or "flowing"with regard to a conventional field line and vector diagram.  All it is telling us is the polarity and magnitude at any point in the field.  The vector arrows do not indicate flow.  Remember too, that there can be as many field lines as you desire, depending on the required resolution of the analysis/simulation you are performing and that the field is actually in 3D.     
   
Quote
The problem i have is, the current magnetic field theory says the field is conservative, and that is not going to work for me.

I see this as an entirely different subject.  If your invention requires the field to be non-conservative, I do not see how either the current field theory or your proposed two field theory allows for this.  It would seem that some other aspect of the field would need to be invoked for this to be possible.  Something that would allow additional properties to be theorized that may not be accounted for in the current simulations and understandings.  There are additional theories that consider what may be driving electron motion in seeming perpetuity that deal moreso with the nature of matter and the vacuum that may allow for “apparent” non-conservation, but how deep we want to go down that rabbit hole depends moreso on the nature of your invention.   

Quote
So, i need to find a field theory that fits and works for said invention.
My current two field theory fits like a glove.
All my experiments over the past 30 odd years, point toward this two field theory being correct.
The two field theory allows for an imbalance within the fields, where it could be said that the north field can be of greater magnitude to that of the south field-an imbalance of charge-much like the asymmetric capacitor.

I have magnetized iron and nickel rods such that when measured using a Hall probe, a fairly large difference in strength at opposing poles is observed.  As well, an almost diode type action can be observed wherein the strength of the field measured at one end of the rod is preferential to the polarity applied at the opposing end.  After many tedious measurements, I believe this action can be fully explained using the conventional model.

Please do not consider our debate adversarial.  A good theory should hold up to scrutiny.  You should welcome the controversy as it may help you refine your theory.

Please make sure you fully understand the current model of the magnetic field, at least with regard to magnitude and polarity within the field, before stating those magnitude and polarity measurements are incorrect.  That's going to be a tough hill to climb.  Be sure you have fully exhausted all possible explanations that fall within the realm of our current understanding before feeling the need to invoke something new.

I am indeed rooting for you and wish you only the best in any of your endeavors.  I look forward to the day you are able to disclose your invention.

PW
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Hi poynt99,
I wonder if a fully saturated PM has any Bloch walls, and don't think Bloch walls in PMs have any effects on nearby coupled devices. Domain walls in general can affect induction in a coil via the Barkhausen effect. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkhausen_effect)

Also reference my replies #3 and #26 in this thread for some definitions and information on the subject.
bi

I think we are in 100% agreement bistander. I would however like for those that challenge this understanding to walk us through the steps I have outlined in my questions.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
So to be clear, the value of the field entering the core of an inductor at the mid point of the PMs field between poles, is the exact same value of the field exiting the core at the same point, meaning that the net value of the field within the core is 0? If so, is this not a neutral point within the field as i have claimed?, where the field cannot provide a net induced field into the core of the coil.

It does not mean that the net value of the B field within the coil's core is 0. The magnetic field is in fact alive and well within the coil's core, and the field itself does not cancel or reduce to a null value in any way. The 2 induced voltages of the coupled coil are what completely cancel if the core is at the centre of the rod magnet. Induction still takes place, but the resulting positive and negative induced voltages cancel to produce a net voltage of 0.

The key to understanding this "net-zero" result is to realize that the flux density entering the core from one end of the magnet induces a voltage equal and opposite in polarity to the voltage resulting from the same flux density exiting the core on its way to the opposite end of the magnet (assuming the core is in middle of the rod magnet). If the core is moved closer to one of the ends of the rod magnet, the flux densities entering and exiting the coil core are no longer equal, and so the net induced voltage is non-zero.

Note: An alternate and perhaps more succinct terminology for "entering" and "exiting" the coil core,  is "approaching" and "departing" the coil core. However, neither terminology is in reference to the relative physical movement between the magnet and coil core, it is in reference to the direction-of and coupling-to the rod magnet's B field.


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 275
Why won't worked out a magnetic monopole if many bar magnets we forced with one pole inside a some ball?
Meanwhile, only identical poles of magnets will be output at the surface of sphere.
How can the opposite pole come out from inside the ball to the surface ?
 ???
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
picowatt
Quote
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.

I agree and FE tech can be a double edged sword. On one hand the FE inventor must be unique and thinking on a different level from another perspective to succeed. On the other hand this creativity and originality tends to conflict with the others more conventional way of thinking.

Quote
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?

I think I can answer this question because my zero point theory is very similar to Tinman's two field theory.

My premise is based on an already accepted theory that one condition cannot transition into another condition without becoming neither and/or both conditions in the process. This is a first principal relating directly to cause and effect.

Let's look at the logic and reasoning behind the theory.
When we claim something has changed into something else we must then explain exactly how it has changed. So when people claim a bar magnet has two different poles N and S which have two different qualities we can assume some kind of change has occurred. We cannot claim there there is no change because we already have tangible proof there is. The like poles repel and the unlike poles attract which is proof the magnetic field at the poles is not the same and have two different qualities.

In reality this has nothing to do with lines, loops or the current modelling more so first principals relating directly to cause and effect. Ergo, one condition cannot transition into another condition without becoming neither and/or both conditions in the process. Logically, there must be a transition zone otherwise there can be no transition.

Quote
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's very easy to understand, the Conservation of Energy always applies because it is a first principal. One thing cannot act on another thing without an equal and opposite reaction occurring somewhere in the system. However energy can be converted or transformed in countless ways. So yes one field or more or part of it could easily be non-conservative so long as the total energy is conserved. This is where most people go wrong in my opinion.

I like the easy answer concerning FE devices, there is more that I do not know than I could possibly know. So a machine doing something I do not understand is unavoidable. I see nothing remarkable or impossible about it because no person can know everything. In fact, when I was sent to go evaluate many FE devices I thought it was kind of boring. It was countless hours of boredom trying to figure out what the inventor was thinking and what they had done. I like FE because I like using logic and reason to work through problems. The more difficult the problem the more I like it.

AC
 








---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
My premise is based on an already accepted theory that one condition cannot transition into another condition without becoming neither and/or both conditions in the process. This is a first principal relating directly to cause and effect.

This is worth coming out of hiding for and saying at least there is something we agree on. In fact I would go one step further, at some point there is a random 50% chance decision that has to be made. The cat is either dead or alive you choose. That is the fact Einstein couldn't accept, that out of randomness and a few simple rules a whole universe can be constructed.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Quote
author=poynt99 link=topic=4661.msg112210#msg112210 date=1716003766

Quote
It does not mean that the net value of the B field within the coil's core is 0.

Ok, i do not understand as to how you come to a non 0 value, as if the value of the B field was not 0 within the core, then induction would take place, which would show a non 0 value of EMF produced across the coil.

If the B field vectors and flux density entering the core are equal to, but opposite of that exiting the core, at exactly the same time, then the total flux density, and the vector of that flux, is 0 at any given time. If we push on an object with a force of say 5 newtons, while also pulling on that same object with the same force of 5 newtons, then the object sees no net force applied to it.

Quote
The magnetic field is in fact alive and well within the coil's core, and the field itself does not cancel or reduce to a null value in any way. The 2 induced voltages of the coupled coil are what completely cancel if the core is at the centre of the rod magnet. Induction still takes place, but the resulting positive and negative induced voltages cancel to produce a net voltage of 0.

First up, i have never used the term !null!, I have always stated neutral.
Ok, so the positive and negative values of the coil are equal to, but opposite of each other, and the net value is 0.
This means that the value of the flux entering the core at a given vector, must be the exact same value of the flux of the opposite vector leaving the core, using the field vector arrow depiction of the magnetic field vectors. So these field vectors have to sum to 0--no net vector through the core to induce an EMF across the coil.
When you have an equal to, but opposite of, any two quantities of anything, then the net value of those quantities always sums to 0, meaning it is a neutral value.

Quote
The key to understanding this "net-zero" result is to realize that the flux density entering the core from one end of the magnet induces a voltage equal and opposite in polarity to the voltage resulting from the same flux density exiting the core on its way to the opposite end of the magnet (assuming the core is in middle of the rod magnet). If the core is moved closer to one of the ends of the rod magnet, the flux densities entering and exiting the coil core are no longer equal, and so the net induced voltage is non-zero.

My point exactly.
At the center there is no net value- the two values are the same as each other, but opposite to each other, and therefor that is a neutral point within the magnetic field.

To quote: (The neutral point between two charges is the point at which the electric fields of the two charges cancel each other out, resulting in a net electric field of zero. This point is important because any object placed at the neutral point will experience no electrostatic force from the two charges.)
Is this point in the magnetic field not one in the same?


Brad



---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Then you should welcome these debates and discussions.  If I were to invent something that appeared to defy explanation using our current scientific understanding of the field surrounding a magnet, I would want to make sure I fully understand what that current scientific understanding actually is.

Scientists and engineers have produced excellent mathematical models and subsequent simulation software to the point that they can design a magnet shape or pole assembly to produce a field of just about any desired field geometry.  Many fields of science and engineering use these mathematical models and computer simulations every day to design everything from efficient motors to plasma containment.

You are up against a huge field of study that has reached a fairly high state of the art as far as being able to define and model the magnitudes and vectors anywhere in the field surrounding a magnet or magnetic assembly.

Scientists may not yet be seeing what the "field" is actually made of or in, but they have definitely worked out the math that allows accurate predictions and simulations. 

I think I understand your proposed two field theory.  The most difficult to reconcile aspect of your proposal is the stated null, canceled field, or polarity change that happens at the center of the field.  None of the above discussed modeling indicates that a null is there.   

So, if I had an invention that I believed required their to be a "null" in the field as you propose, and all of science and simulation says there is no null, I would first ask, what does the current model say about that area?.  We know it is the region of the field where the field is most homogeneous.  It is also where field lines are most parallel to the magnet's axis.  It is the area of the field where a coil can be positioned with maximum perpendicularity to the field lines for minimum induction.  Can any of these properties be shoehorned to fit into your device's theory of operation?

Have you considered having the magnetic aspects of your invention simulated with software to see if  similar results can be attained before invoking non-conventional thinking?

On a side note, I cringe every time you use the word "flow" or "flowing"with regard to a conventional field line and vector diagram.  All it is telling us is the polarity and magnitude at any point in the field.  The vector arrows do not indicate flow.  Remember too, that there can be as many field lines as you desire, depending on the required resolution of the analysis/simulation you are performing and that the field is actually in 3D.     
   
I see this as an entirely different subject.  If your invention requires the field to be non-conservative, I do not see how either the current field theory or your proposed two field theory allows for this.  It would seem that some other aspect of the field would need to be invoked for this to be possible.  Something that would allow additional properties to be theorized that may not be accounted for in the current simulations and understandings.  There are additional theories that consider what may be driving electron motion in seeming perpetuity that deal moreso with the nature of matter and the vacuum that may allow for “apparent” non-conservation, but how deep we want to go down that rabbit hole depends moreso on the nature of your invention.   

I have magnetized iron and nickel rods such that when measured using a Hall probe, a fairly large difference in strength at opposing poles is observed.  As well, an almost diode type action can be observed wherein the strength of the field measured at one end of the rod is preferential to the polarity applied at the opposing end.  After many tedious measurements, I believe this action can be fully explained using the conventional model.

Please do not consider our debate adversarial.  A good theory should hold up to scrutiny.  You should welcome the controversy as it may help you refine your theory.

Please make sure you fully understand the current model of the magnetic field, at least with regard to magnitude and polarity within the field, before stating those magnitude and polarity measurements are incorrect.  That's going to be a tough hill to climb.  Be sure you have fully exhausted all possible explanations that fall within the realm of our current understanding before feeling the need to invoke something new.

I am indeed rooting for you and wish you only the best in any of your endeavors.  I look forward to the day you are able to disclose your invention.

PW

Am I correct by stating that we both believe that when the body of the PM is magnetized, this field that forms around the PM body, does not come from within the PM material itself, but where a field around the body of the PM, and in all space, already existed, and was organized in some form, to form what we call the magnetic field?

Ok, if that is correct, then lets do a little thought experiment.
Lets take a water pump ( 1Kw centrifugal type), where the water pump is our PM body, which is yet to be magnetized.
Now we take 4 foot of clear tube, and we loop it from the outlet of the water pump, around to the inlet of the water pump.
We now fill the whole system with water, removing all the air within this loop.
We now switch on the water pump (magnetize the PM body).
Now this would represent how the PM is shown to us, where we have arrows pointing out of the north of the PM (water flowing out of the pump), and into the south of the PM (water flowing into the pump)

Now, to be clear, although the arrows on the vector lines of the PM field are not showing a flow of some kind, we don't actually know if there is a flow of anything, as we don't yet know what the magnetic field actually is. But the water flowing out of the pump, looping around, and going back into the pump, would be much the same as the magnetic vectors, and a direction of force. If we look at the flow of that water, we know that the !force! is in one direction, such as may be said for the PM field. But we need to look at what is creating that force direction within the flowing water.
Is it from the pump pushing the water out?, or is it from the pump sucking the water in?

If we place pressure gauges along that clear tube that loops the water through the pump, we will find that near the outlet, the pressure is a high positive value.
But the pressure gauge near the inlet of the pump, will show a high negative value.
So, at the outlet, it would seem the pump is pushing the water out, and at the inlet, it would seem the pump is sucking the water in.
As we move our pressure gauge along the tube from the outlet, toward the center of the length of tube, we would see a slow decline in positive pressure.
As we move the pressure gauge from the inlet side, toward the center of the tube, we would see a decline in negative pressure.
Then, at the center of the length of tube, although the water is still flowing with the same force through the tube, the value of pressure is 0- it is the neutral point of both the positive and negative pressures.
This is how i see the magnetic fields. Although the force (flow of water) remains the same, no pressure is placed on a pressure gauge that is placed at the center of the tube, between the outlet and inlet of the pump. This is much the same as the core of a coil being place placed at the center of the field that exists between the two poles of a PM, where no induction can occur, due to there being no net field being induced into the core of the coil, even though that field (flowing water) still exists.

Now, if we place a thin flat blade inside that tube, at the center point, so as it can act like a rudder, and we turn that blade to the left, it will experience a force pushing it to the left.
And if we turn it to the right, it will experience a force to the right (the Lorentz force). But the pressure value remains at 0 at that point where the blade is.
So we can see the pressure gauges along that tube as being the cores of the coils, where the center core (gauge) sees no net value in this field, as the field is neutral.

What i do know is, this field or fields can be manipulated to either attract or repel unmagnetized ferromagnetic materials, such as steel and iron-etc.
One would think that the single field would only allow for an attraction toward unmagnetized ferromagnetic materials.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80

Nor will any ferromagnetic material stick to the center of the PMs body, but will stick to any point either side of the center, regardless of which way the field vectors are going.


If you stick ferromagnetic metal to the side of the magnet at the Blotch Wall, you are right.

But if you align 2 poles side by side to form a Blotch Wall, the situation totally changes.  Not only does metal stick at the polarity divide, it is the strongest force and the metal will pull itself to the new "Blotch Wall".

Observe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqC6r0a8EaA

Maybe I am wrong, but this tells me that the Blotch Wall on the side of a magnet has no force.  The poles weaken to zero before going into the opposite domain.  I come to this conclusion because the test I did above clearly shows metal has no problem sticking to 2 opposite polarities.  If the side Blotch Wall had magnetic strength, the bolt would stick to the dividing line like it did in the video when we use the faces..
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
If you stick ferromagnetic metal to the side of the magnet at the Blotch Wall, you are right.

But if you align 2 poles side by side to form a Blotch Wall, the situation totally changes.  Not only does metal stick at the polarity divide, it is the strongest force and the metal will pull itself to the new "Blotch Wall".

Observe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqC6r0a8EaA

Maybe I am wrong, but this tells me that the Blotch Wall on the side of a magnet has no force.  The poles weaken to zero before going into the opposite domain.  I come to this conclusion because the test I did above clearly shows metal has no problem sticking to 2 opposite polarities.  If the side Blotch Wall had magnetic strength, the bolt would stick to the dividing line like it did in the video when we use the faces..

I do not see it as a bloch wall, but your video shows clearly what i am talking about, where the bolt sees an equal but opposite field, which results in a net flux of 0 in the bolt, and where-as your video clearly shows, no net magnetic flux exists within the bolt. The flux is at the surface of the bolt that is across the two fields. Entropy tells us the bolt will seek the lowest point of energy, not the highest.

The same thing happens if you try to get a thin steel laminate to stick edge on to the center of the fields of a long bar or rod magnet-it does not stick, regardless of being in the field.
This is because there is no net flux induced into the steel laminate, due to the field entering the steel laminate being equal to the field exiting the steel laminate, which means no net field within the steel laminate.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
Am I correct by stating that we both believe that when the body of the PM is magnetized, this field that forms around the PM body, does not come from within the PM material itself, but where a field around the body of the PM, and in all space, already existed, and was organized in some form, to form what we call the magnetic field?

Brad,

You and I are so far apart with our modeling of what is going on inside and outside a magnet, I am hesitant to agree with you on anything.

I read your horrible analogy, which I won't bother copying here, but the closest you came to describing anything close to a magnetic field was when you inserted a rudder into your tube and measured the force and direction the water was imparting on the rudder.  Given a constant flow rate, the rudder sees the same force anywhere along the tube, and points in the direction of the vector.  But that is all that was analogous. 

You really need to slap yourself silly every time you use the word flow, or any of its derivatives, when contemplating a magnetic field.  Only you can be honest with yourself, but having read your posts, it seems to me that at some point in your life you saw a drawing of a magnet with field lines and vectors and took that drawing to mean something was "flowing" out of the N pole and returning back into the magnet at the S pole.  After contemplating this for some time, it suddenly occurred to you that this can't be right because two S poles would attract.  So you spent the decades since pondering this dilemma, and the best you have come up with is some sort of alternate "flow" type theory that somehow proves science to be wrong and you to be right.

As soon as you realized the flow model allowed two S poles to attract, you should have considered that perhaps it was your understanding of the field drawing that was in error, and not the "science" behind it. 

So here we are decades later, and your still saying science is wrong and continuing to use this idea of "flow".  Your analogies are off the chart primitive, and expose how little you understand about how "science" describes a magnetic field.

If you need an analogy to help you understand the magnetic field around a magnet, I can provide you one that might get you headed in the right direction. 

This analogy is a mechanical contraption that, although it could actually be constructed, is best left to the realms of mental imagery.

This mental analogy (or assembled mechanical contraption) has the following attributes:

1.  There is no "flow"

2.  Like poles repel

3.  Opposite poles attract

4.  Produces interesting Lissajous, phase, and standing wave visualizations

I first started using this analogy as a visualization tool decades ago.  If you are able to visualize this analogy, it may help you to better understand what "science" has to say.  It's a bit lengthy so let me know if you want me to take the time to post it.

Regarding your ball bearing, yes, I believe a magnetic field can be manipulated in such a way to cause a steel ball to be repelled.

Regarding your continued discussions involving induction.  You seem to have forgotten some basics.  If we have two coils, one fed a signal, and one receiving that signal, and place their winding axis parallel to each other, maximum induction occurs.  If we rotate the receiving inductor 90 degrees (perpendicular to the transmitting coil's axis), minimum induction occurs (old timey radio stuff).  The deepest null that can be achieved is when the axis of the receiving coil is at the exact center of the transmitting coil.  This is basic induction.  The field lines and vectors discussed regarding a PM apply in this two coil discussion as well.

If you replace your center coil with a one layer pancake coil, and position its wind axis to be parallel to the magnetic axis of the PM, there will be induction into the coil of the same polarity and magnitude all along a field line anywhere in between the magnet's poles (with magnet motion as in your 3 coil experiment).  There will be no "null" or polarity change observed.  If you rotate the coil's wind axis to be perpendicular to the magnetic axis, minimal induction will occur.  The depth of that null is governed by the same attributes as in the basic two coil induction above.

Let me know if you (or anyone else) are interested in reading a description of the mentioned analogy.  It would be a rather lengthy post so I won't waste my time if no one is interested.

Please stop thinking and saying "flow"...

PW 
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
picowatt
Quote
So here we are decades later, and your still saying science is wrong and continuing to use this idea of "flow".  Your analogies are off the chart primitive, and expose how little you understand about how "science" describes a magnetic field.

Perhaps, however we could ask if any of your magnetic modelling allows for a working FE device?. Which then begs the question why anyone would adopt a theory knowing it cannot produce the results we want. Your modelling and theories claim a FE device is impossible do they not?.

Simply put, if your theories do not allow for a working FE device then obviously there the wrong theories, it's that simple.

On the possibility of the right theory, almost all successful FE inventors recognized the polar nature of the magnetic field. In fact, very few if any ever used the lines and loop model. These inventors took another approach which was countless hours of hands on experiments to prove the matter for themselves.

Here is an excellent read on how to build a working magnetic motor.
http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm

Note how the inventor didn't use your current modelling because the year was 1879. Let me repeat that, the year was 1879 which was 145 years ago. As well, the inventor describes many real experiments they performed to validate there theory. Very similar to the kinds of basic experiments Tinman is doing.
We also know countless other supposedly successful FE inventors were using a similar theory.

It all comes down to credibility in my opinion. Do we believe the FE inventors who seemed to be successful and made real progress or others who didn't?. Did you replicate the experiment below?, I did and Wesley Gary was correct.

AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
Maybe you could tell us something we don't already know which cannot be found in any textbook?...

It appears that only a few here know what is actually in the "textbook"...

Before someone writes a new book supposedly correcting errors in the old book, should they not at least first read and understand the old book?

PW
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3499
If the core is moved closer to one of the ends of the rod magnet, the flux densities entering and exiting the coil core are no longer equal, and so the net induced voltage is non-zero.
It is the variation of the total magnetic flux penetrating a coil that causes the Faraday's induction in the coil - not the flux density variation.
It mathspeak it is ℰ=dΦ/dt  not  ℰ=dB/dt.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 07:54:55