View Single Post
 
Old 05-01-2018, 02:45 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,473
Bad science

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
That's right...that one...the one you called "bad science"...Rawls & Davis book.
Here is an example what these authors promote which I call bad science. Found in chapter three:



Then they end chapter with what I find disgusting:

Quote:
We are closing chapter three with the discussion and drawings presented only to better explain magnetism, the rate of flow direction, the two poles, the division of the two poles, and the potential force as to the electronic charge potential of each pole. This allows a reference to scientists who may not have continued into the physics of electrodynamics. Students and instructors should attempt to upgrade and correct any older text materials that differ from today's concepts and understandings of the basic of magnetism as presented herein.
All because they observed a bubble drifting on a microscope slide between magnets in 1936. From what I call tell, this bad science was the beginning of the misuse of "Bloch wall" and spinning static magnetic fields. The origin of fantasy magnetism.

As long as I have started and have the Rawls & Davis diagram shown (attch#1), I'll explain some of what's wrong with it. When you do a Google image search for Bloch magnetic domain wall, you see hundreds of hits most looking like attachment #2.



From: Domain Wall Magnetoresistance

Now compare the two diagrams. The primary discrepancy is the labeling of the N & S surfaces. The arrows represent particle or crystal dipoles and point to the N end of the dipole. So the surface of the domain to which the arrows (dipoles) point will be the N side (pole) of the domain which is the top left as shown in attch#2. Similarly, the bottom right will be that domain's N making the upper right surface S as indicated in attch#2.

Notice in attch#1 that Rawls & Davis apparently misread such a diagram and labeled the end surfaces N and S. This makes a huge difference. They continue bad science assuming they're looking at a diagram of a magnet of handheld size when the domains, of which there are two shown, are but a small fraction of a millimeter in size. And then their third piece of bad science is to assign spin to the magnetism. I won't even touch their ridiculous broken figure 8. The whole deal stinks.

Regards,

bi
Attached Images
File Type: jpg bloch-wall.jpg (97.2 KB, 155 views)
File Type: png The-Bloch-wall.png (119.4 KB, 159 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 05-02-2018 at 09:07 AM. Reason: Added link
Reply With Quote