Hi

I don't know if that will be interesting but I want to start discussion about the famous Lenz law here. I think something interesting can be found by simply investigating the "weak" points in this law.

__________________
 

Move from "Donald Smith devices too good to be true"
with my comments inline (I use only a basci English so bear with me)

Originally Posted by level :
a) this is all fine but I'm missing the real comprehension how is that made in atomic level. First your comment above tells me that there is no magnetic field when no closed path because there is no current flow.
From experience I think we can agree about this right ? (However some deeper investigation here is needed and I expect someone already thought about it and tried a very long transmission line with open end and with a coil placed on this route. Then sending a signal on it a careful measurement of magnetic field on coil would answer a few questions)
b) another very valuable information is "current is building up to its maximum value it generates a corresponding increasing and expanding magnetic field in and around the inductor" - tells me that when maximum current is reached there is no further increase of magnetic field in or around inductor - again, magnetic field depends on current but surprisingly does not depend on time of current flow (?) (someone should expect then when something is flowing into limited area, flood will happen soon ). My guess is , that's because electron movement is not current, their drift is very slow in conductor. I assume so far that current is a wave passed like Don Smith explained from one electron to the other. Where is magnetic field so ?

c) "As this expanding magnetic field builds up, it's expanding flux lines cut the coils of the inductor and induce a voltage in the inductor which is in opposition to the voltage we are applying to the inductor." - are you sure ?
I don't see why it should be this way exactly.Except when we use common inductor with each turn in the same direction, but what if we have a coil with two turns and each in opposite direction wound (but still turns are connected of course)?

I still do not understand. I believe magnetic field has always two poles,right ? So you are stating that when I take a large magnet and move it's N pole to the wire, the current generated inside wire will create magnetic field of what polarity ? North ? South ? and where is the opposite pole created ?

Collapse what ? Why magnetic field do not just vanish immediately in no time ? Looks like it has a supporting "thing" inside wire ?

Sorry guys, but I feel like a 2 years old child who was told that 2+2 =4 . So I'm asking : what is 2 and 4 , what is + and = ? and I've got an answer : "This is the law ,and law is just that. Learn the law."

__________________
 

This is how my small mind thinks of what's happening, and it may be incorrect. Think of the atomic structure of a wire. These atoms, and electrons are small magnets arranged into a net 0 magnetic field. Push a current through it and the magnetic poles line up, imagine each atom making a turn. It takes time for the line up to occur like grass in a flowing stream. They restrict the flow until it overpowers them. Now stop the flow and they want to return to a net 0, the grass wants to stand back up and when they do they restrict the flow and pull it back a bit.

My two cents.

__________________
 

Excellent ! That is EXCATLY what I think also.

Electrons are small magnets and they rotate to align with the EM wave being send from power source. Also I believe they can form one single "tube of force" at once so to pass more current power source must produce enough "tubes of force" or waves to pass through wire (if wire is not thick enough "tubes of force" explode it because I think beside electrons chain (tube of force) there is also crystal structure which is opposing flow = resistance, with enough tubes of force the resistance is enough to turn wire into pieces).
For resistance I can add Tesla analogy : a bad formed hose for water flow with many holes. It is known that due to resistance energy escape in form of heat or RF or any other radiation.


OK. So what we can learn based on this theory ? One very important thing :
magnetic field comes from electrons inside wire (small magnets) , from flipping they (quantum level) magnetic poles.
We can have only two situations , and I think those are what scientist should check (or it was already done but I didn't know):

1. Electric current causes a "movement" of electrons , their flip generate magnetic field around wire
2. Electric current is a full EM -kind wave via a wire (which acts as waveguide) - it contains also magnetic component and that component interacts with electrons , the rest remain the same : electrons flip and generate own magnetic field.


In both cases there is electron's magnetic field which is responsible for Lenz law. It's simply a realization of the most basic nature law : Newton III law.
Action vs reaction. The current electromagnetic laws seems to avoid this basic law.

The whole concept is wonderfully fruitful , just let it spin your mind....

I think we can quite nicely connect theory to Ed Leedscalnin and Joseph Newman concepts. I don't believe scientist didn't knew all that before.

__________________
 

Hi boguslaw. Just want to clarify something. I don't think Lenz's Law is so much about the details of why an inductor works the way it does, or what magnetism or magnetic fields are, or what electric current is, or what atoms or electrons are, etc. What people like Lenz did was actually very basic and straightforward. They took an inductor and ran experiments with it and carefully observed exactly how the inductor behaved under these different experimental conditions. Then based on these careful experimental observations they would describe the fundamental properties of the object under study.

Again, my understanding of the essence of Lenz's Law is it is just a description of how an inductor behaves when you apply a voltage or magnetic field to an inductor. It is based on actual experimental observation, not hypothesis or speculation.

For example, here is one expression of Lenz's Law:
"An induced electromotive force (emf) always gives rise to a current whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux."
One only needs to do a basic and simple experiment to confirm that yes, this is exactly how an inductor does behave under this condition.

In regards to things like what is electric current, and what is an atom, or what is an electron, and what is magnetism, etc., again this has nothing much to do with Lenz's Law, which is just a description of how an inductor behaves based on careful experimental observation. We can confirm that Lenz's Law is valid because the operation of solenoids and transformers and electric motors and electric generators all confirm what Lenz observed, and we can also conduct very basic experiments with inductors and observe that what Lenz has described is confirmed by experiment.

This being the case, I don't think there is too much more to be said on the matter. If someone thinks there may be special cases where there are exceptions to Lenz's Law, then they should be able to demonstrate experimentally what this exception is. If they can't do something as basic as this, then it is just talk as far as I am concerned.

__________________
level

Hello Boguslaw and all,

Great Thread my friend!, and I do believe you are completely right...as "Any Law"...it could always have its "exemptions"...or the way to "go around" them all...

I agree with your atomic view of the electrons side, as also stated by Ruphus.

Pier Luigi Ighina (Ex Marconi Assistant)...and creator of many weather changing "apparatus"...call it "Il Atomo Magnetico" (the magnetic atom)

Tesla also mentioned that fact...atomic alignment of trillions particles...as He spoke about Neutrinos back then.

However, I believe that they do not return, when power/flux/currents or whatever is disconnected, to a "neutral" position... I believe each atom have a very "particular" and different natural alignment which would be its "rest positioning"...due to many factors...like chemical/mechanical configuration/structures, surrounding environments...etc.
All this creates a "Natural State" which is a Random and very misaligned status...and that is the way they "live" in our Nature.

Now, when we shape a Coil in a specific fashion...that leads to "specific atomic alignment" when we apply a current flow...

Lenz law is real...and it manifests very accurately as described...and in order to "picture" it I would say that it creates a "Mirror Imaging" opposed to our input sense/flow.

A Generator is the typical example of this law...when the stator coils induce the generating coils, they "respond" by creating an opposite magnetic field to the one who generate it (stator)...then what happens?...they attract, not repulse...and the more load we apply...the stronger the magnetic attraction would be...Generator would get extremely "stiff" to be rotated...requiring a Monster Prime Mover...who would that be?...of course...the Gas Engine so far...right?

However, that ONLY "applies"... IF, we are projecting coils in a "Mirror-Symmetrical" way...
There are Asymmetrical Projection Angles between coils, where this law still prevails...but, the opposite reaction would be used to thrust rotation and not to counter/oppose it . The Toroidal Generator from Haynes is an example...but there are more and more ways...

I do not consider it is a "Violation" or even an "Exemption" to this Law...it is just a way to use it on our favor...

Originally Faraday stated the "Induction Law" based on just a single conductor and a Magnet where either one moves related to the second...
But He never stated that the magnet nor conductor must be of an specific shape...We started limiting ourselves to certain patterns...windings, coils and overall structural shapes and we "lock them" in time...

Unfortunately, many of those who started to "see it" thinking outside the locked box...are not around to tell Us how they did it...

Regards to All


Ufopolitics

__________________
 

Level,

I am almost in full agreement with you on this topic. And honestly there needs to be more people who can actually think clearly like yourself.

That said, it almost sounds like you're of the belief that it isn't possible to observe new conditions that are outside of Lenz's original findings, with regard to the Newtonian "back-reaction" of a force and its counter force. Now I don't want people to infer that you can eliminate the back-reaction (IT WILL ALWAYS EXIST), but instead, you can realistically, displace it in time or space.

An example of two phenomena that Lenz didn't observe are, Delayed Reverse Flux (displacement in time, magnetic viscosity effect), and Redirected Reverse Flux (displacement in space, multi-flux path effect) in magnetic circuits. Thanes Heinz has demonstrated both of these effects on the bench, so there is physical evidence of these being real and honestly quite logical.

Further, there is ABSOLUTELY NO "LAW" that says a reverse flux HAS TO connect back to its perturbing force, aside from cliche' "Lenz Law" interpreters. If you examine how magnetism really interacts, its merely the rate of change in magnetism (change in magnitude of magnetism per change in time) and the effective weber-turns connected to that change which causes a voltage to be seen on a secondary coil.

The induced voltage on the secondary when loaded, or shorted, causes a current to flow. Which in-turn causes a SECONDARY magnetic field, if you were to redirect the path of this secondary "back-reactionary" field you would have no change in impedance on the source magnetic circuit. Thus no loading at the primary. Lenz law still exists, as the field of the second coil IS in REVERSE, it's just that it isn't affecting the primary circuit as it has been redirected to a separate magnetic circuit.

The other phenomena is related to magnetic viscosity and hence the delay time of demagnetization and reversal. If you were to apply this to a motor, which Thanes has done, you would observe a mechanical drag associated with the movement of a rotating wheel of magnets relative to an iron core inductor set at the periphery of the rotating magnets. When shorted the inductor's induced voltage, due to the magnets alternately magnetizing the iron as they pass by, causes a secondary field that opposes the applied field of the magnets. Thus a drag or mechanical load is seen. However, after a certain speed threshold is reached, the magnetic viscosity induced delay in the reverse field causes an attraction force to be seen and now we have a NEGATIVE mechanical load, or more aptly an ACCELERATION being applied to the motor. If this acceleration is great enough it can cause the motor to begin acting like a generator and the flow of power will reverse back to the energy source powering the motor. This however is rare, and most you will ever see is a drop in motor driving current due to an increase in rotational speed - which is lower than the no-load quiescent state.

So it would seem illogical to believe that a force and it's counter force always have to be in the same time frame or spacial envelope of existence. Concluding, the idea isn't to prevent a counter force, but instead, to delay it in time or redirect it in space.

*On a final note, I wouldn't get into "electrons" and "how they work" as most people have no idea what they are talking about. Charge carriers are weird and do not behave as most think they do; electrons DO NOT move down a wire like water in a pipe, the charge jumps from electron to electron in the Drude gas. Further, complicating simple phenomena like Lenz law with subatomic particles is plain stupid. This is because of the dot convention and Benjamen Franklin "conventional current", which doesn't mix well with modern particle physics.

Regards,
Garrett

__________________
 

garrettm4

Contrary, without understanding what is hidden behind Lenz law , you can't find how to avoid it's consequences. Would be interesting to ask Thane how he found his method of regenerative acceleration coil and if to explain it he used the atomic model...
If I'm right, then every electronic book should be re-written, and Ufopolitics method is one of the same range you mentioned. Add here also various famous devices like TPU or Kapanadze devices ....

Kind of usage : v8 �уперот�кок от резинового шарика.avi - YouTube used by NASA

__________________
 

I would like to hear explanations from Garret and Level on what they think is
happening in these video's where acceleration under load and short circuit is
observed. Thane's Lenz Law "violations" are related directly to the
acceleration under load effect, his words not mine.

Short clip.
Acceleration under load effect ( 'Par-Petua' : ) Short clip.wmv - YouTube

Full clip part 1. Showing setup mainly
Generator rotor acceleration when loaded 1 (Par-Petua Setup. - YouTube

Full clip part 2. Showing Effect.
Generator rotor acceleration when loaded 2 (Par Petua - YouTube

And the transformer effects are the same effect, I remember Thane saying so.
He also says that any one showing acceleration under load effects is showing OU, I disagree.

Regenerative acceleration transformer effects. At 8:00 mins I do a funny trick with a fluro held in the hand.
(Regenerative acceleration transformer effects ?) Bogus or not - YouTube

Similar effect
This is with a pair of air core resonant transformers one is the generator of
the HF AC supplied by a battery and the other is the output transformer.

Reduced input under load effects.wmv - YouTube

Showing reduced load on supply battery.
Reduced input current under added load effects 33 - YouTube

It makes me wonder if I can see these effects and produce them on demand
based on what I have learned form conventional sources. Is there really
anything going on outside of predicted behavior based on conventional knowledge ?

The entire lecture is good but at 33:00 and 36:00 he explains why the frequency
restricts the max current.

MIT Lecture (Inductance)
Lec 20 | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002 - YouTube

Cheers

P.S. What I did was got annoyed at what I seen as misleading misconceptions
or deliberate misleading, I seen a couple of Thanes video's and knew
intuitively what was most likely happening, it seems obvious to me the motor
generator and transformer effects are because of frequency related current
restrictions or an increased abnormal Lenz effect under no load but reduced
by the load.

The BiTT is a bit different but I see no demo's with any more than flea power.
Maybe there is a reason for that. Without any higher power demonstrations I
see nothing to get excited about concerning the BiTT.

..

__________________
 

I agree, I felt boguslaw was looking for possible answers as to why it works as it does. What was "hidden" in the wire as he said.

As I said before I could be completely wrong as it's all speculation. My apologies for any confusion I may have added to the thread.

__________________
 

Hi garrettm4. No, I see everything as working models, and not as absolutes. The idea of calling things 'laws' probably goes back quite a ways in history, but I think it is an unfortunate choice of word for such things. Since I see everything as working models, then I see no reason why we can't modify any of our working models accordingly if we come across evidence that shows our current models are lacking or incomplete or wrong in one way or another.

I have experimented with the Thane Heins bitoroid transformer configuration somewhat, and although I am able to see the effect he described, I have not been able to measure over unity as of yet. One person who posted here stated that this effect can be explained as high leakage inductance, and it seems at least possible that might explain the effect, as what I have noticed in my own experiments is there is very little power available to the load in this arrangement. That seems consistent with a high leakage inductance arrangement. I haven't drawn any conclusions either way about this though, as my experimental setups so far have not been very ideal. Anyway, that is veering off the topic here.

__________________
level

Also here is a video showing the efficient lighting of the same 25 Watt globe and
using the same transformer as used in the video in my previous post.

Very efficient lighting with AC.wmv - YouTube

In this case the globe has 243 volts across it or so and is fully lit using the rated
power, I think it shows that at least part of the idle power losses are negated
when a load is applied as well. If nothing else it shows the very same setup can
properly drive the globe to full brightness with good efficiency.

We can see that the efficiency is related to the light produced and the power
consumed. When somebody shows a globe fully lit with the rated power and a
total efficiency of over 100% considering all power consumed from a battery.
Then I will be thinking something new is happening.

I haven't seen anything that looks like breaking any Laws in any of the video's
I linked in this thread. In fact the effects are in "line" with the Laws as far as
I can tell.

Cheers

P.S. I agree with Level on the Laws thing, if we something that definitely
contradicts the Laws without doubt and is repeatable then they are no longer
valid Laws. I have no problem with the understanding of them being changed
I'm not a big fan of Laws, but, if the shoe fits ....


..

__________________
 

Hi All, Interesting thread, when you make a connection, there's a spike. When you break it there's a spike. Connect it and break at the same time,same time.
This is where a mercury switch might work,I'd like to try it.
I think the law is sound, I've done many test's and seen the drag effect ,when load is added.
Transformers can catch the spike ,and store it in caps, without causing drag.
The switch is the hard part
shylo

__________________
 

Hi farmhand. Your videos are very well done. That lecture by the MIT prof is really interesting as well. I don't really have any explanations off the top of my head about the regenerative acceleration effects or the effects of seeing reduced input power under load with the transformers. I have been experimenting and seeing similar sorts of effects with different types of transformer setups as well, but I don't have any confident explanations at this point. Still experimenting and observing and thinking about things, but taking it slowly due to limited time.

__________________
level

Hi Ruphus. No worries at all. It never hurts to discuss different ideas. I just wanted to clarify that the details about exactly why things work the way they do in inductors is not really key to understanding Lenz's law. Lenz described the important properties of inductors under certain conditions and the exact why of it all is left for others.

__________________
level

Well here is a definition from Encyclopedia Britannica.

Lenz's Law definition.

Lenz's law (physics) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

From the page.
I think because the magnetic field has energy concentrated in it and this
energy has to dissipate, it cannot just disappear.

I think the old explanation of the inductor trying to maintain current flow is
not really entirely accurate, in my opinion because of the energy of the
magnetic field having to dissipate due to not having a current to support it's
continuation, when the current that makes it is stopped then the energy simply
looks for the easiest way to dissipate and takes the path the original current
took if it can if not it will take the next best path or just oscillate the coil
until dissipated.

I don't think it's a matter of the inductor wanting to keep the current flowing,
I think it's a matter of it's the energy of the magnetic field's best or only way
to dissipate. Effect is the same so not important.

For the simple definition of Lenz's Law to be shown as not always correct I
think an induced current would need to be caused which aids the change that caused it.

I don't think that simply showing a generator rotor accelerating under load or
a transformer's reduction in input power when loaded shows any Lenz violation,
I think it shows something else as the cause, probably more than one other reason.

Cheers

P.S. I think Lenz's Law defines the effect of the transfer of energy by induction, more
energy transferred equals more Lenz effect, Less Lenz effect equals less
energy transferred. All my experiments point to this being true.

..

__________________
 

Hi farmhand. Yes, the expression of an inductor 'wanting' to oppose changes to its current is just an expression of convenience. I don't think it was/is ever meant literally. It gets the point across nicely however. As I mentioned before, an inductor acts in such a way as to always try to oppose external actions that cause changes to its current, but again here, there is also really no 'trying'. What Lenz described is the basic inherent properties of an inductor. These are the properties that make an inductor act like an inductor. These properties exist due to the self induction that occurs in an inductor. If you don't have those properties, then you don't have an inductor. You will have something else.

Basically what Lenz described is that there is a very definite relationship between an externally applied voltage or magnetic field, and the resulting induced voltage, current, and resulting induced magnetic field in an inductor. This relationship can be very simply summarized as an inductor always acts in such a way as to try to oppose an external action that is causing changes to its current. The actual mechanics of why this works this way is not really critical to understanding Lenz's law. Lenz just pointed out the properties and relationship. The actual mechanics of it all are left to others, although Lenz may have delved into that aspect as well.

__________________
level

I agreed with what Garrett orignally wrote:

If BEMF = electrical inertia it would explain why expelling magnetic fields through super-cooling is the way to achieve superconductivity. On that note, Dave45 ought to try submerging his coils in dry ice.

I'm no expert but would the next step in IC chip miniaturization be nano-3D printing (molecule-by-molecule) of conductive material to reduce heat and EMF radiation?

__________________
 

Ein~+ein,

Thanks for your support.

Now this might sound like I'm beating you up, but I would have to say that you are way off in left field on the affect of absolute temperature and its relation to magnetism!

Back EMF has nothing to do with super conductivity! As BEMF is the affect of an expanding magnetic field in an inductor during CHARGING. That is, an inductor OPPOSES the change in current through it. This opposition is seen as a VOLTAGE across the inductor opposite to the direction of the applied voltage. Hence the term "Back EMF". Sometimes called an inductive voltage drop, which is very much like a resistive voltage drop. Now, when talking about motors the BEMF is more complex so I won't get into that topic here. The contraction of a magnetic field, during discharge, produces an EMF in the same direction as the initial power source. That is, they are both in series, or are additive. This could be called the Forward EMF, as it IS NOT a drop in potential, but instead a rise in potential. Confusing indeed. And even more so when you examine the picture with sinusoidal AC. As the change in magnetism is proportional with the current through the inductor (rising and falling and reversing etc.) the forward emf of the contracting magnetic field ends up in reverse direction to the applied AC source, thus you end up adding two quadrature sine waves together to form a third effective one measured in the circuit. With pulsed DC, the BEMF is seen during charging as a drop in applied potential across the reactor (reactor voltage drop - source voltage). The FEMF is seen during discharge as a rise in potential in series with the source (reactor voltage + source voltage). The pulsed or transient conditions of inductor circuits follow a logarithmic envelope related to epsilon or Napier's constant. This being related to the time constant, tau, expressed as: tau (in seconds) = L (henries) * r (ohms). There being 5 practical time constants in the envelope. Sinusoidal circuits of a continuous condition have a flat (unchanging) envelope, however "dampened AC waves" also follow the logarithmic progression of epsilon.

Super conductors are affected by ANY magnetic field, they make no distinction between an EMF vs. a BEMF. Therefore, any external magnetic field will cause induced surface currents that then perform screening of the external field by a reverse field from the surface currents. The term super conductivity is derived at by the observation of the lifetime of the induced surface currents. That is, they don't decay due to resistive losses, and hence demonstrate that there is zero resistance or "super conductivity"

Finally, "radiation" is related to a lot more than "EMF". As you have near-fields AND far-fields, your "EMF" would represent a time variant electrostatic near-field. Further, EM radiation is determined by the antenna structure (intentional or not), and its radiation resistance.

Once again, I'm not trying to beat you up, just pointing out how I see things.

Garrett

__________________
 

This I believe is what is happening here. Its very interesting!

Angus Effect

A search on the topic brought up nothing so I'll place it here.

__________________
 

Still trying to appreciate how and why this works. Thanks for helping.

__________________
 

Here are my thoughts loosely related to Lenz law. I learnt that Lenz law is about transients or changes but it didn't explain their nature or the basis. Is that because of changing EMF which cause changing magnetic field or is that about changing magnetic field which cause counter-EMF ?

Ok, you probably saw that example before.... take two coils of the same resistance but different number of turns connected each one to own DC power supply giving the same finite max power. Now ,as I understand the Lenz law occur when we turn power switch and the current start to flow. In the circuit with coil of larger inductance (more turns) , time required for reaching max power is longer then in circuit with coil of less turns.
When the max power is flowing in both of circuits there is no difference between them except when you turn the power switch off.... the flyback is higher voltage in circuit with more inductance.
Contrary to some videos I think there is no direct gain here because the longer time required to reach max power, the energy expended initially is more in case of large inductance to overcome Lenz law.
Is that correct ? MY intuition tells me that if my theory is correct , I can explain it by more wire mass containing more electrons to align during initial power on time. Sure, it may not add any significance to the Lenz law usage in this case but hold on.....maybe we can find some....

In this simple experiment IMHO we separated in time action (initial Lenz law opposition to current flow) and rection - collapsing magnetic field flyback, and it's a quite a benefit for us.

Here I can already propose one of OU design - after separating in time action and reaction we should simply find a way to temporarily nullify inductance however high it can be during the initial period of "charging coil"..... and we know it's possible..... in resonance...

It's a one way for OU

__________________
 

Boguslaw, what do you think of this setup in light of your March 30th comments?
PERPETUAL MOBILE - BITOROID TRANSFORMER - YouTube
Bob

__________________
 

It should work but definitely not as presented, unless there is a radio transmitter nearby.
Sorry, I'm a bit busy these days....

__________________
 

The Angus Effect, very interesting,thx Ruphus.
When you create a flow,that opposite reaction shows up,but..before it does for that instance....catch it.
shylo

__________________
 

I thought it was VERY interesting!! That guy was reproducing the effect from Anguswangus. It's like using Lenz Law in reverse, or using eddy currents to power the secondary circuit which may flip the magnetic eddy current of the pickup and help drive the rotor.

I'm hoping he puts magnets all the way around the rotor and just uses one pickup. Or I might have to build it myself just to see what happens

__________________
 

And here is an experiment of J.L. Naudin confirming phase shift in a laminated transformer core.
Solid State Delayed Lenz Effect in laminated steel core proved with the VRM measurement
You can see him probing the induced magnetic field around the core with a Hall sensor. The shift happens at some distance from the oscillating coil.
This confirms the method used by Tesla to achieve a second phase in one of his 4-pole AC motor, having only one AC input signal.
It is achieved by moving 2 stator coils further back on their cores, away from the rotor.

So, to build a delayed Lenz generator coil we need only a long core protruding from the front of the coil.
... just as Anguswangus did with his PMH gen coils.

__________________
 

I posted about this motor before in the Romero/Muller thread.

Patent US524426 - NIKOLA TESLA - Google Patents

It must work because Tesla would have tested it.

Cheers

Edit.

P.S. I think this is the motor kEhYo77 refers to in above post.

I think it's just a delay in the magnetization of the core away from the coil.


...

__________________
 

Not Sine and Cosine as I hoped! But sin(x) and -sin(x) will be likely be more useful. Thanks for the link kehyo77!!!!

__________________
 

@kehyo77
I mean no offense but I had to laugh when I saw this video and it is a good example of what can happen when people fail to learn the basic principals of electrodynamics.

Now watch the video again and notice how the polarity reverses after the center of the laminated core. This happens because the magnetic field of the coil has induced a magnetic field in the laminated core. It is called "magnetic induction" and has been know for a very long time.

When a magnet approaches an iron core it induces (magnetic induction) a magnetic field of opposite polarity in the core and this is the sole reason why the magnet is attracted to the iron core. We should be clear that a magnet is not attracted to iron as it does not have this capacity, the field of the magnet is attracted to the field induced in the iron core. Only fields have the capacity to act through a distance on one another.

As well notice how at the left we have one polarity, at the center no polarity and on the right an opposite polarity indicated by the hall probe just like a real magnet because it is one in this case. The point of no polarity is called the neutral center and is found in every magnet and every magnetic field. This is the singular point where one field diverges into two opposite polarities however we should understand the field in itself is two manifestations of one thing... magnetism.

I always use Hall Effect Probes to measure magnetic field density however not unlike an oscilloscope these tools are only as good as the operator. We have to know what it is we are actually seeing or measuring and how it relates to what is happening.

AC

__________________