Just magnetic fields

[barbosi]

I open this topic to discuss magnetic fields, mainly to identify misconceptions coming from assumptions made during experiments or while reading the textbooks. “Just” from the title is not used with the meaning of “only” but rather as “correct” or “proper”. It is my conviction that only a proper understanding and clarity of all phenomena involved will give a solid ground in developing novel devices.

I invite everyone interested in the topic to analyze the information presented and the conclusions I reached. If there are contrary or complementary opinions my wish is to discuss them and if possible to clarify them with simple tests. My request however is to take your time, analyze whatever aspect fireworks in your mind and keep it short with questions or reveling new implications.

In my presentation I will use different sources without necessarily endorsing them. I'll use only the illustrations and any pertinent statement.

[barbosi]

It all began with using iron filings to describe the shape of magnetic lines. The shape assumed when sprinkled on the side of magnet bar is well known. But when it was sprinkled on top of the poles, the accumulation was not offering the same amount of detail. That until few years ago, when a fellow researcher (pinestone from overunity forum helped by his friend John Shearer) published some interesting pictures.
He used a grid in the shape of a “star” projected on a CRT monitor:

Figure 1.


Then approached a magnet bar and touched the monitor first with South pole:

Figure 2.


...followed by the North pole:

Figure 3.


Now we can see that contrary to the iron filings (which were too coarse and also being magnetized, interacted with each other), the magnetic fields of the magnet exhibit also a spiral shape which is different from a pole to another. This kind of information is not present in the textbooks, as far as I know. I heard people saying it (derived probably from Rodin's theories), but now we have a simple test setup to prove it.

That was the first revelation and I'll let you the pleasure to associate clock-wise and anti-clock-wise spiral shape to each pole.

As a late addition, from the same brilliant researchers I present a side view of a bar magnet:

Figure 3a:



Please notice the equatorial plane where all magnetic field lines emerge.

Also in the history of magnetism research, trying to determine the characteristics of the magnetic field, people used magnetic needles:

Figure 4.


DC current generated magnetic fields

Same iron filings were used in the research of the magnetic field around a straight conductor.
However, much more information surfaced when the magnetic needles were used:

Figure 5.


Note that the direction of electric current is just a convention. Also the direction of magnetic field lines adopted a convention (N-S) which later for no particular reason changed to arrows:

Figure 6.


Of course there is no pole leading nor trailing and yet a “direction” was adopted and by doing so, the rule of the right hand was adopted:

Figure 7.


By this decision it was created the opportunity for anyone to make an assumption, that the magnetic field is rotating. I could not find anywhere such statement, but looking at the arrows along the field lines, implicitly one would assume the rotation. Lets make now clearly the distinction, the magnetic field is not rotating, it just assumes the round shape.

What are those silly arrows doing on the drawings is anyone's guess, but I believe textbooks were cooked to make sense of Laplace:

Figure 8.


And so a new theory applied to motors has been born. While this was useful from engineering point of view, the joke with the arrows showing the direction of magnetic field extended to the magnets too:

Figure 9.


Until now I am not aware of anything flying from the North pole and arriving to South pole. In fact, I feel being in agreement with many that actually some distinct field lines fly from each pole. To date, orthodox research did not prove this but anyone can take the lead here with suggestions. Scientific establishment does not state anything like that and of course there is no decent explanation nor any demonstration about the reason of drawing arrows.

Another reason might be the fact that to the magnetic field B it was associated the quality “force” also with direct implications in motor engineering. It looks and feels like a force, it presents torque like a force, it must be a force.

[barbosi]

As Eric Laithwaite said in numerous occasions, any association with mechanical elements is always useful, but up to a point. In my opinion, any force may be represented as a vector and as any vector can compose with others of the same nature. If two equal vectors have opposite direction, they cancel themselves. This is not the case of magnetic field.

When a coil is energized, a magnetic field is present as bellow:

Figure 10.


Magnetic fields present around two adjacent turns are opposed one to another and as “forces” they should cancel each other.

From What is a magnetic field? we can observe the picture of magnetic field between two wires:

Figure 11.


along with following observations:

This shows the magnetic field strength around the two wires. Current is flowing into both wires. Notice how the magnetic field is slightly stronger on the side of the wire away from the other wire? This is showing that the magnetic field around a wire affects how the current flows in neighboring wires.

The picture is coming from a simulator which assumes the field cancellation.
In reality however, the field is rather strengthening, same or similar effect being observed in so called “super magnets” by John Bedini (when two similar poles of two magnets are pressed against each other). In addition, “The wires are attracted to each other, and will pull themselves closer together.” as per What is a magnetic field?

Resuming, not only that they behave as forces although they may obey F=m*a (yet we don't know for sure), but what is strange is that the forces are not in straight line between wires adding as vectors, but rather some “circular” forces that still should cancel each other. Also, when interacting with needle magnets, magnetic field won't put them on circular motion as any respectable force acting upon mass, unless relative motion occurs first. Same with permanent magnets acting upon electron beam on CRT monitor (Figures 2 and 3).

Conclusions:

• Magnetic field around a wire as in Figure 5 does not rotate, it just assumes the circular shape, the arrows are meaningless.
• Magnetic field between two adjacent turns of a solenoid is not canceled, but rather intensified.
• Magnetic field interacts with electric field (Figures 2 and 3), in fact a more intricate interaction is already established by main stream science.

[barbosi]

Addendum:

Lets assume we have a very short wire with an electric current passing through it. The magnetic field will be present in layers. One single layer is shown next:

Figure 12.


Obviously the conductor is in the middle of the central “pillar”. The oval shapes have also the bipolarity represented by the black and white borders. The only misrepresentation is the position of the ovals, they are shown in vertical rows, instead they should be “twisted” as in a vortex. If you remember Figures 2 and 3, the individual twist direction of each pole should apply here.
Speaking of layers, one can imagine how dense are the ovals on an inner layer and how rarefied are on an outer layer. People call these “Magnetic Flux” and is greater near the conductor and weaker when farther away.
By now, you should be used to the illusion of rotation in Figure 12. The real magnetic field same as in the 2D picture, is static. Nothing is in motion. For an external observer, the slightest eye movement he makes, the magnetic field appears to be in motion. Taking now the perspective of the central conductor, “he” knows that all is motionless. “He” knows (and we should know too) also that all exterior configurations are a consequence of conductor's status. One example (and is not unique): more current passing through, more dense magnetic layers.

If we imagine now two adjacent conductors part of the same coil, we have Figure 12 for each cross section on any point of the two turns. Function of the current passing through coil and the distance between the turns, we have a sense of the density of the ovals (is increasing with the increase of current). Like two inner tube wheels forced locked to stay close one to another in the same position, while and air flow (current) is inflating them. They are more dense in the same limited space. There is no cancellation of magnetic field between turns, but rather an increased density.

And that's all for now just using DC current.

AC current generated magnetic fields

The situation with the AC does not change much, except that the magnetic field changes in time its intensity based only on the amount of current flowing in circuit.

The same principle applies also to the whole coil, the most dramatic change being perceived inside the coil. With the addition of a ferromagnetic core, this change is even more dramatic.

Considering two opposite coils only like in a stator of an induction motor, by varying a the current in the manner that in one coil there is more energized that another, a ferromagnetic probe will be attracted by the coil with more magnetic flux.

In a slightly more complex configuration, we can achieve the effect shown here:

Figure 13.


What should be noticed is the illusion of rotation as result of change in magnetic fields intensity at different moments in time. The magnetic field does not rotate. All magnetic fields are static but by varying their intensity through the intensity of currents, they simulate the motion.

Another simulation:

Figure 14.


Each individual “ball” is not rotating but rather has a linear motion:

Figure 15.


Interestingly enough, when we are aware that we are witnessing an “optical illusion” we cannot be deceived. We say that is a trick played to the mind and as result the mind is fooled. Funny thing that a real apparatus can be built on the same principle, and we know that real motion can be achieved. It looks like matter can be fooled too.

[barbosi]

Intermission:

I knew about Professor Eric Laithwaite for a long time from his public presentations of gyroscopes. I made the assumption he was a Mechanical Engineer due to his diligence in presenting the incredible properties of a wheel in his speed rotation.
Many years ago a friend pointed about the high probability of error when one makes an assumption. Since then, I still learn how right he was. As it turned out, Professor Laithwaite was an Electrical Engineer. A very sharp inquiring mind, questioning everything, assuming nothing, which was marginalized by slowly eroding public confidence in “The Science Establishment”.

I would like to point out several things in one of his presentation “Magnetic River” made in 1975:

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

Embracing the style of a show man, he made it easy to learn a few things which for most were and still are incredible.

He starts the show with a little trick which should be a lesson in not trusting any assumption: introduction to the wonders of permanent magnets.
At minute 7:20 it baffles with some floating aluminum rings. The bigger and heavier gets the aluminum stack, the higher they float.
At 8:00 he presents a copper cylinder device to probe the motion of the magnetic field. But what makes one wonder is the properties of aluminum actually.
At 8:15, he makes the official statement “We [The Establishment] call that upward sweeping something THE TRAVELING MAGNETIC FIELD”
At 10:12 minute mark, he present a mechanical contraption meant to simulate the wave of magnetic field. At 10:25 he states “We got the IMPRESSION of something traveling along … But NOTHING it's traveling along”. How brave is that? IN THEIR FACE!

It's sad that he had to be punished for ideas that were potentially capable of scientific advancement.
It's the ignorance that keeps us chained. As I cannot fight world ignorance, I only can apologize for my rudeness when I thought I could slap my truth in other's face.
I can fight my own ignorance though. This thread is a map of my own road bumps I met and the future ones. By sharing this I only hope to provoke other fellow researchers to lucid thinking as exercise of the mind.

And now intermission's music: OneRepublic-Counting Stars

PS: In the spirit of fairness and true honesty, I have to tell you that in all this presentation, the timeless inspired ideas (as I consider them) are not even mine. I just padded them with my understandings. All it came to me as I consider it as a heavenly wonderful gift, so now I give it back to all of you inquiring minds with the hope you will be inspired same way I was. Make most out of it, and make your own gifts.

[Cadman]

Barbosi,

Interesting thread, thank you.

In your post #2 regarding the crt images of the two magnet poles you say “the magnetic fields of the magnet exhibit also a twist which is different from a pole to another”, and that there is a “clock-wise and anti-clock-wise spin to each pole”.

Actually there is no difference in the direction of the twist from pole to pole on the crt screen, it is the same direction. What makes it appear to be opposite is the 180 degree reversal of the perspective between the two images. The magnet was flipped end for end.

[Hrothgar]

Twist

As Eric Laithwaite said in numerous occasions, any association with mechanical elements is always useful, but up to a point. In my opinion, any force may be represented as a vector and as any vector can compose with others of the same nature. If two equal vectors have opposite direction, they cancel themselves. This is not the case of magnetic field.

When a coil is energized, a magnetic field is present as bellow:

Figure 10.


Magnetic fields present around two adjacent turns are opposed one to another and as “forces” they should cancel each other.

From What is a magnetic field? we can observe the picture of magnetic field between two wires:



Conclusions:

• Magnetic field around a wire as in Figure 5 does not rotate, it just assumes the circular shape, the arrows are meaningless.
• Magnetic field between two adjacent turns of a solenoid is not canceled, but rather intensified.
• Magnetic field interacts with electric field (Figures 2 and 3), in fact a more intricate interaction is already established by main stream science.

in figure 10 if you note the alignment of the horizontal arrows they are in a mode of attraction while the vertical arrows are in the mode of repulsion hence the wire pulls one way and the fields push in another. and if you note when you force a large amount of energy into a confined space like a bullet in a rifle the effect can be quite impressive. But, back to the area of repulsion. Why would anyone suggest the forces would cancel each other out. Holding a north to a north gets deflection not cancelation, this is why magnetic domains exist otherwise magnets could not exist above the nanoscale or (conceptually) below the entire ominverse being a laterally alignied magnetic toriod.

Flux is a mystery on one hand we are comfortable with it and it is in every modern device we use, on the other hand it behaves as if it where suspended between this universe and another. It behaves as a particle and a wave form. Above all it seems to only go in the back door and come out the front. Leedskalin from his writtings thought that what we call flux was the magnets themselves and not the matter that contained them. Leedskalnin's Writings: MAGNETIC CURRENT


In figures 2 and 3 you point out rotation yet in figure five you deny that rotation can exist. Please explain?

[barbosi]

Barbosi,

Interesting thread, thank you.

In your post #2 regarding the crt images of the two magnet poles you say “the magnetic fields of the magnet exhibit also a twist which is different from a pole to another”, and that there is a “clock-wise and anti-clock-wise spin to each pole”.

Actually there is no difference in the direction of the twist from pole to pole on the crt screen, it is the same direction. What makes it appear to be opposite is the 180 degree reversal of the perspective between the two images. The magnet was flipped end for end.

Cadman,
Thank you for the interests in the topic, your involvement means a lot for me as it made me ask myself is it true or is an illusion? And that doubt made me to act.
When in doubt I try to make a mental experiment, as the mind is the most affordable lab anyone has. Sometimes I have trouble and I try to make a small practical experiment. Being a visual individual, I let the sense of sight to aid my thoughts but not to lead them. In other words I try to take into consideration a quote of Rita Mae Brown: “Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment.”

I pay particular attention to simple experiments which may reveal simple mechanisms. I depart from the idea that there is no simple mechanism that applies to small things and does not apply to big things. One simple example is how temperature affects magnetism of a bar magnet. For that matter, there are old researches I can use so I have no need to remake the experiment. Those researches led to what we know today as Curie temperature. And that applies to small things – the magnets. When we go to big things, we hear that Earth is a big magnet and its magnetism comes from the iron core which is at thousands degrees temperature. Curie's conclusions do not apply anymore and instead of looking for the missing link, we throw all in the trash bin and develop other new theories. To me, it does not make any sense.

I believe that in our research, all thought flows coming from an idea must be followed through inside and outside of the element that present a phenomena. The inside and outside are related and any discrepancy must have a cause. That should be considered too (I would go to the extend to say it has to be MOSTLY considered), not discarded because it does not match our model.

With regard to your observation Cadman, I invite you and anyone interested to take the effort, grab a ball, an apple, anything round, mark to diametrical opposed points and “rubber stamp” the shapes revealed in Figures 2 and 3. And that to reveal only the “outside”, but it will do it. To reveal the “inside” too, more suitable would be a torus, something like this:



You may use markers, 2 colors if you wish, assign one hemisphere for N and one for S, draw lines like in Figure 2 and 3 extending them inside and outside, then observe the lines.
After drawing conclusions, the question might follow: is there any resemblance in field lines with a conductor carrying an electric current? Any difference?
But again, an apple will do it well. Be the Newton of present day!

And thanks again Cadman for your comment which made me act and remove doubt from my mind. By doing so I discovered another wonderful thing. For the first time I've seen graphically the connection with Rodin's torus. Before I thought that was just a speculation with numbers and now I have a new direction to explore. That was because of your comment and again I thank you.

Edit:
Hrothgar,
Part of the answers you will find if you allow yourself to play with two apples. Draw field lines and observe how do they look on both sides at proximity of opposed poles then like poles. For other aspects I have to take time to read throughly and understand the concern. Now I am caught in some domestic issues.
Nevertheless, I thank you too as you show interest and doubt. I am sure that sharing our thoughts, together we can find answers and connections to ideas we did not understand before.
Soon.

[Cadman]

Ha ha, barbosi I cannot tell from your response whether you agree with me or not

So I invite you to perform this visual experiment. Take a clear piece of plastic or glass, I used a sandwich bag, and draw the center magnet circle with twisted lines coming out just like the crt image figure 2 and mark that side as S. Now turn the bag over and mark that side N as it will look like figure 3. This is why I say they are the same direction.

[barbosi]

Why would anyone suggest the forces would cancel each other out. Holding a north to a north gets deflection not cancelation, ...

It looks we are in agreement here.

In figures 2 and 3 you point out rotation yet in figure five you deny that rotation can exist. Please explain?

Instead of word “rotation” I prefer to use term “curved”, because “rotation” can be deceiving for some people, implying motion, while curved, circle, spiral implies the shape only. In the case of permanent magnet bar (as in those figures) the shape is spiral, while in the case of wire attached to a current source the shape is circle.
I see though what you mean and the terms “twist” and “spin” I used may be deceiving too, so I changed them to “spiral shape”. Thanks for pointing that out.

Ha ha, barbosi I cannot tell from your response whether you agree with me or not

So I invite you to perform this visual experiment. Take a clear piece of plastic or glass, I used a sandwich bag, and draw the center magnet circle with twisted lines coming out just like the crt image figure 2 and mark that side as S. Now turn the bag over and mark that side N as it will look like figure 3. This is why I say they are the same direction.

I am glad we got in this confusion, as I see it. You see, in their shows magicians use mirrors and transparent materials to deceive public. Once you use the apples the illusion dissipates.
I took my time for taking pictures that I think may clarify the issue and I attached them for your convenience.

The reason I invite everyone to perform such simple tests is that:

• Unfortunately my quota for uploading pictures is limited and soon I may run out (I may need to check on this). I prefer links to pictures from the web because I can do a better page layout and also because often people have more artistic vision. With regret, I am not a big fan of Faceboox, and other media sharing sites so...
• Everyone has the model in their hands, analyzing from any angle. Any new idea should arise, it could be shared with the rest of us.

Lets look first at the picture I attached. You'll see with different colors (no direct relationship between color and pole designation) field lines as in figure 2 and 3 (top shots). In the side view you'll see the inner and outer equatorial plane with the junction of the field lines. Why do they look like they are discontinuous? "Mirror" like. What is that special with with that equatorial plane?

And the really good part with the transparent material you used: If you get that transparent (let it be photographic film) between two opposed poles of two magnet bars and do project lights from the poles towards it, could you see the shadow reflected and having the same shape? "Mirror" like. Just like on your sandwich bag. Can you see how an erroneous situation is not a failure after all? Is like in that joke, even a kick in the @$$ leads to a step forward.

Considering you have a picture of the each shadows on individual films and superimpose the films in such way the field lines are interlaced, you can visualize how they could have the condition to lock on each other. Pretty much like in the movie Avatar when the hair braids of the blue humanoids “hugged” with the mane of the “horses”.
By approaching the two magnets it is possible in this configuration to unite them.

Now the same mental game for like poles: can you see how the field lines cannot interlace but rather they intersect and block each other the attempt of joining them?

All that because the field lines act like forces. Are they forces in the Newtonian sense?

Thank you all for your insights.

[barbosi]

I just want to share with you an old burning question I asked my self.
We know that matter affects us:

• Sun makes all life possible on Earth
• Pillow makes some people dream and rest better (or not )
• Spices enhance food
• Stick hurts sometimes
• etc,

Does space (the empty 3D perceived nothingness where rebel space dust, suns, and planets, and moons all arranged in galaxies, all coexist together with pillows, spices, sticks and etc.), so does space has any influence on us?
If yes, how? If no, why?
It's just my unresting question and I don't expect an answer, because I know it's only me to wander for it.

Peace!

[indio007]

where does this phenomena fit into your thinking ?
introducing the magnetic hose

The Spiral is quite interesting. There are many other variables associated with the crt that could cause it.

[brandon]

NANOMAGNETICS.US

[barbosi]

Hello indio and welcome to my fascination with magnetism, although I would love in exchange to hear about individual experiences of everyone visiting this thread. Related to magnetism of course. I won't protest if anyone would jump in discussing electric fields in relationship to the magnetic ones. I don't want to be the only “leader” of the thread. I feel like drained after just answering questions.

where does this phenomena fit into your thinking ?
introducing the magnetic hose

With the link you shared, I am not sure what to say. Maybe because there is one buzz word which may arouse some people but not me: Quantum. I really enjoy simple things and I don't understand why people should invent new words for old phenomena. I can see some times clouds in the sky, like sitting on a glass ceiling and I can see how an upward pressure can hold them up there. I can “see” layers of magnetism behaving the same way. But to admit that all is because of a constant... A constant is a number and no matter how important might be, it does not explain the “why”. It is like telling the circle is that way because of Pi. And Plank's explanations to me look like stating what was noticed.

I see there have been used two layers of ferromagnetic material, it looks like they want to capitalize on the layer structure which occurs naturally.

I thank you for pointing to this article, and will have to spend time, serious time if I see there is something I could use. I don't always get it and especially for the first time.

The Spiral is quite interesting. There are many other variables associated with the crt that could cause it.

I always try to consider all variables and I have to tell the truth, I am not Zeus and I have to live up to my human condition. If you think there is a catch that I might have missed, please let me know. All I was impressed was the simplicity of experiment and the focalized fascicle coming from beyond the luminescent surface which is by design orthogonal to the screen.
Also, but I did not mention before, because of the tree-color dot structure, the composed resultant wave creates colored structure with great resemblance to cymatics structures.
But you may be right, it might be an illusion afterall. Can you elaborate if you think it worth?

Thanks.

[barbosi]

NANOMAGNETICS.US

Cool stuff, especially when they put into the mix the idea of "lens".

Do you have some insights?

Thank you.