Just magnetic fields

[Hrothgar]

The push and the pull

Hey Barbosi,

I tried sliding a magnet down the side of large copper tube and seemed to give same effect, but I need a sheet of copper to really see if same effect happens. Not only does aluminum show a difference in direction as magnet slides down for each pole, confirming opposite curved lines, but the fact that one side sticks better also confirms that the electron fields in aluminum also are curved in a particular direction. Aluminum has one electron in it outer shell, it has spin(curve), it has to match the curve of the magnet pole, I believe.
I also noticed that the magnet seems to be trying to flip to the side that sticks, when it falls.

Machine

I see a magnet as I would a water pump in that on one end you have an increased pressure and on the intake side a vacuum trying to be filled. I have no expectation of a south having an symmetrical field as the north. The main reason I see for nice tight toroid representations is the high resistance of space and the close proximity of the intake. This suggests it's quite possible to have different reaction strengths depending on the pole involved.

[machinealive]

Hello guys

So I had the same results with copper, same pole falls off. When I pay attention to that experiment, I notice that the side that is attracted to the South Pole of a compass, the side that sticks to the aluminum or copper plate, I noticed the back lifts as it slides, the front is attracted. And the North Pole is the opposite, the front lifts, the back sticks, and the magnet falls.

Machine

[barbosi]

I have 2 compasses and one of them is pointing South
I guess one I can use to go in the woods, and the other to return home

Well, the moral of this is "use the same measuring stick".

[shylo]

Magnetic fields

Barbosi, Excellent thread,..I think the biggest mistake everybody makes is that, you need to use steel in your coils to increase the strength of the magnetic flow with-in the windings.
The steel just locks-up the magnetic field, it concentrates it with-in the steel.
Let the magnetic field flow ,don't restrict it.
Sorry just had to say.
artv

[thx1138]

Hello thx1138, what device are you refering to?

US PATENT 685,957 APPARATUS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF RADIANT ENERGY
Tesla Patent 685,957 - Apparatus for the Utilization of Radiant Energy

[barbosi]

The following is inspired from Self-Induction thread and since I don't want to interfere with my imaginative speculations, I'll post it here.

We all know about numbers, Natural, Integer, Rational, Irrational, Real... With our self restricted mind, the logical or analytical mind, we tend to do something with these numbers. Most logical answer is to apply to them mathematical operators, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. All math operations will deliver an answer which bottom line is a Real number.

The trouble came with sqrt(-1) called “i” then “j” to increase the confusion. Scientific community in an effort to give a definition/explanation to this situation, baptized this situation as “Imaginary”. So they could still maintain their claim “Were still in control here, nothing weird and embarrassing happened!”. In my opinion embarrassment started with the self imposed restriction “there cannot be square root of a negative number!!!!!” witch has its reasons in the realm of logical mind.

To avoid more unanswered questions related to the use of chosen word “Imaginary”, the term has been changed to “Complex”. So we got “complex numbers” as result of mathematic interaction with “i” and soon it was found that an inductor or a capacitor have the properties to act as resistors and the term was coined “impedance”.
To make graphic sense it was invented the “complex plane” with the well known “complex circle”. Why was circle and not ellipsoid is anyone's guess, mine is that simplicity was the factor. However, the impedance has two components, one real and one imaginary but scientists take every opportunity to tell that all factors are real (REAL-REAL) so there is nothing to be amazed. The irony is that the whole product of math operation is IMAGINARY and apparently there is nothing amazing at all.

It is self evident that human senses respond to motion only, and our dedicated organs have a limited “band width”. Noting that something is happening without our awareness, man invented all kind of instruments to enhance our natural perception.

From the observation that no human sense or instrument can detect motionless or stillness, I was letting my “Imaginative Mind” to speculate on the nature of magnetic field (and for the symmetry reasons one could take the electric field).

We can easily admit that at each magnet poles there must be a flow, even the term “flux” means the flow of a physical property in space. However, instruments detect the presence at best, not the motion. The familiar coil used as probe in a magnetic field tells not story when is motionless in proximity of a bar magnet.

And now come the unanswered questions, rather than speculations: Is it possible that is there more than our space? Can be another space? What separates them? Bloch Wall with its stillness can be such gateway? When I ask myself these questions I am not looking to the thrill of fiction literature but rather to first proofs for this “Real” world. To the necessary step to make the “imaginary” as real as the reality of Impedance.

And most important due to its implications: If motion is characteristic of a given space can we perceive motion from another space? Can be like looking into a mirror (Motion detected by motion only, I move – my mirrored image moves)?

One of the reasons was inspired by looking at the torus picture I attached a while ago where one can see the black trace coming down to Equator then disappearing but we feel that it can continue on the other hemisphere. The same with the red trace.

Many philosophers which were the scientists of their time had a moment of inquiry while contemplating the “seen” versus the “unseen” of this reality.

My moment of making sense was when I superimposed the image of my torus with the image coming from Marco Rodin. He has two “circuits”, I have traces of two colors. He has numbers with no immediate connection to me, I have the “seen” and the “unseen”. He has 3 special numbers not present in his “circuits”, I have two regions of change in flux type plus one unseen point as the source of all Bloch Wall and mass center of torus.

So many questions started by this insignificant “i=sqrt(-1)”. Imaginary number heh? Are there more imaginary numbers out there? Or in other words can man imagine another paradoxical situation leading to another imaginary number?



PS: I feel some guys may have another question: Do you have a schematic?
My answer is: No.

[barbosi]

The legendary Stephen Hawking after stating in his website (Into a Black Hole - Stephen Hawking)

People have searched for mini black holes of this mass, but have so far, not found any. This is a pity, because if they had, I would have got a Nobel prize.

declares that 'There are no black holes'



Time to find some other role models. How about ourselves?

[thx1138]

From the observation that no human sense or instrument can detect motionless or stillness, I was letting my “Imaginative Mind” to speculate on the nature of magnetic field (and for the symmetry reasons one could take the electric field).

We can easily admit that at each magnet poles there must be a flow, even the term “flux” means the flow of a physical property in space. However, instruments detect the presence at best, not the motion. The familiar coil used as probe in a magnetic field tells not story when is motionless in proximity of a bar magnet.

And now come the unanswered questions, rather than speculations: Is it possible that is there more than our space? Can be another space? What separates them? Bloch Wall with its stillness can be such gateway? When I ask myself these questions I am not looking to the thrill of fiction literature but rather to first proofs for this “Real” world. To the necessary step to make the “imaginary” as real as the reality of Impedance.

And most important due to its implications: If motion is characteristic of a given space can we perceive motion from another space? Can be like looking into a mirror (Motion detected by motion only, I move – my mirrored image moves)?

Many philosophers which were the scientists of their time had a moment of inquiry while contemplating the “seen” versus the “unseen” of this reality.

We can easily admit that at each magnet poles there must be a flow...

There need not be a flow of magnetism. Magnetism is a force. It causes other things to flow but magnetism itself need not flow. What you perceive as flow is the "other things" flowing, not the magnetism itself.

Post #1
“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.

Post #2
Figures 1, 2, and 3 exemplify that stated in Post #1. It is not showing the “magnetic field” but the interaction of the magnet’s field with the shadow mask, both the electrons piercing it and those being masked, the dielectric and magnetic fields in the space around both the magnet and the CRT, and, truly, everything else in creation. By creation, I don’t mean the “universe” as defined today but the totality of creation – both that which we now know and that which is still unknown to us.

The magnetic field has no physical form but for us to see its effects we must make it interact with things we can see and then we say we can “see” the magnetic field. But that is not true. We see the effects of the magnetic and the dielectric and whatever else we are not yet comprehending and only in that region of the spectrum which we can see. By saying we can “see the magnetic field” we are ignoring all the rest to isolate the idea and that isolation is wrong. Of course it’s much easier to say it that way but when we start thinking that way we are thinking about things in isolation and absolutely nothing in creation, tangible or intangible, is isolated from anything else.

Post #3
The lines represent lines of force and the arrows represent the direction of that force, not the spinning or movement of that force. If anything is moving it is something upon which that force is exerting an influence and not the force itself. And that something may not be moving at all but only experiencing a stress from the force.

Post #11
“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?”

There is no “empty space”. It’s a convenient idea to isolate something but in fact it doesn’t exist. So anything judged against “empty space” leads to an erroneous conclusion. All space is occupied by something whether or not we can see it and whether or not we can detect it. The former being a very narrow window limited by the parameters of our sight and how it has evolved on this planet revolving around this star and the latter being only the limits of our detectors. Can we detect the gravity from Jupiter or from a star billions of light years away? Most would say no because gravity decreases inversely as the cube root of distance. But if you do that calculation, you’ll see that it never goes to zero. Although it may be infinitesimally small it is still there. And there is a whole universe out there making up uncountable mioniscule influences from all directions.

So you have answered this question in post #1. “…only a proper understanding and clarity of all phenomena involved will give a solid ground…”

How does it influence us? In all the ways that we may be influenced whether we are aware of them are not. How does gravity, light, EM radiation, heat, air pressure, etc influence us? They don’t influence us individually. The influence us collectively. They all influence us and each other all at the same time to differing degrees depending on their proportion at the time and our position in the environment at the time and our movement through them or their movement through or around us.

You might ask if only space, taken as a three dimensional construct, ignoring its contents, has any influence on us. Then you are doing the same thing that leads to erroneous conclusions – trying to isolate it from everything else but it does not exist by itself and is not separable.

The totality of creation, ponderable and imponderable, is all one piece and everything influences everything else by its very existence. At the same time everything is in motion both internally and externally. In all of creation nothing is “static”. The word should not exist. It describes a condition that does not exist.

This all boils down to a conception of creation that is infinite on all levels and at all scales and in all dimensions. Consider this: what if there are fractional dimensions? Say, 2.7 or 1.9 or 0.006 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279… (pi) dimensions? Yeah, I know. It torques my brain also. Especially that last since it is an irrational number that never ends and never repeats. Pi dimensions? But the fact that we speak in integer dimensions like 1, 2, 3, etc. is just a man made concept. But does thinking in integer dimensions lead us to erroneous conclusions? It may be that the intangible resides in those fractional dimensions and only the tangible resides in our integer dimensions.

Go outside on a clear night in a rural area and look up. How could all of that not have an influence on us? And scientists today are saying that all of that is only 23% of what is physically present in this universe. Who knows what proportion that is in the totality of creation? And the CERN “super collider” is still basically just banging rocks together.

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla

[barbosi]

Thanks thx,

I do admit that sometimes I need a reminder. As I was saving a quote for almost a week now, I delivered it to a friend and now is time to look in the mirror to see it for my self: “I am not ashamed to confess I am ignorant of what I do not know”- Cicero

I have to recognize you got a lot of guts to open your heart the way you did, and rest assured it is not in vain.

A friend was echoing back to me an old concept that philosophy has no merit on it self without a practical follow-up in our daily life. It is like rich soil without a seed. I am just happy to see that you like possibly many other silent ones, are looking to the Light ready to unfold the germinating seed. And for sure, there are many other working hands ready to nurture that idea into daily conveniences.

Inspired by Allcanadian the other day, I was reading again Tesla's “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy”. Although I read it before, it was like for the first time. I did not recognize his words, his ideas I thought I knew. And you cannot have the apple without the kernel:

When we speak of man, we have a conception of humanity as a whole, and before applying scientific methods to, the investigation of his movement we must accept this as a physical fact. But can anyone doubt to-day that all the millions of individuals and all the innumerable types and characters constitute an entity, a unit? Though free to think and act, we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. These ties cannot be seen, but we can feel them. I cut myself in the finger, and it pains me: this finger is part of my. I see a friend hurt, and it hurts me, too: my friend and I are one. And now I see stricken down an enemy, a lump of matter which, of all the lumps of matter in the universe, I care least for, and it still grieves me. Does this not prove that each of us is only part of a whole?
For ages this idea has been proclaimed in the consummately wise teachings of religion, probably not alone as a means of insuring peace and harmony among men, but as a deeply founded truth. The Buddhist expresses it in one way, the Christian in another, but both say the same: We are all one. Metaphysical proofs are, however, not the only ones which we are able to bring forth in support of this idea. Science, too, recognizes this connectedness of separate individuals, though not quite in the same sense as it admits that the suns, planets, and moons of a constellation are one body, and there can be no doubt that it will be experimentally confirmed in times to come, when our means and methods for investigating psychical and other states and phenomena shall have been brought to great perfection. Still more: this one human being lives on and on. The individual is ephemeral, races and nations come and pass away, but man remains. Therein lies the profound difference between the individual and the whole. Therein, too, is to be found the partial explanation of many of those marvelous phenomena of heredity which are the result of countless centuries of feeble but persistent influence.

If one wonders what all that has to do with our presence in this forum or topic of this thread, I have to say it again: you cannot have the apple without the kernel. And that core is the dirt where the seed will unfold.

Thank you.

[machinealive]

Hey Barbosi

So many questions started by this insignificant “i=sqrt(-1)”. Imaginary number heh? Are there more imaginary numbers out there? Or in other words can man imagine another paradoxical situation leading to another imaginary number?

Although it is not absolutely related to what your getting at, I cant help but think of Dirac

As Dirac pointed out, this is because the energy-momentum-
mass relation E2 = c2p2 + m2c4, always associated with
Einstein and Special Relativity has two roots; it calls for both
positive and negative energy:
± E = (c2p2 + m2c4)1/2
[The mass-energy relationship E = mc2 was first derived and
published by Oliver Heaviside (1890) and further refined by
Poincare (1900), but Einstein (1905) first furnished the complete
expression including momentum.] Dirac wondered what
to do with the negative energy solutions. “One gets over the
difficulty on the classical theory by arbitrarily excluding those
solutions that have a negative E. One cannot do this in the
quantum theory, since in general a perturbation will cause
transitions from states with E positive to states with E negative.”
(Dirac, 1928a)]

This was from Hotson's paper, you can look up part 2&3 if your interested, I thought this was a really good paper when I first read it, long ago now.
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf

[barbosi]

From the picture of torus with the “seen” and “unseen” magnetic field lines I was talking before I would like to point to a quote from Russell's “A New Concept Of Universe”:

When these curved lines reach the equator which divides the two poles, they reverse and repeat their curvature as though reflected by a mirror.

Where they disappear? In the other dimension which we call “imaginary” as part of the complex space. And that is the topic of today.

The whole math around AC was based on Euler formula:

Figure 20.


In fact a better representation of wave in complex space is:

Figure 21.


The immediate implication is what is seen on oscilloscope screen, which is a shadow projection of complex wave in real plane:

Figure 22.

That alone explains the 90° correlation between Voltage and Current when measured on Coils and Capacitors.

It also lets room for judging the validity of Maxwell wave propagation:

Figure 23.


It is my opinion that in our “Real” world all we have built uses the conduction (closed circuits using wires). Also I find undeniable our use of “stuff” coming from the other “Imaginary” world using induction in devices like coils and capacitors. In fact there is an interchange between "here" and "there", taking and giving back.

That alone was better illustrated here:

Figure 24.


Contemplating the drawing I still find reasons to mull things over especially the statements at the bottom.
To me it has also to do with what we call time constants of real coils and capacitors. Resistance changes its place from one formula to the other. Why?

;

Opinions?

[Hrothgar]

fig 22

fig 21 not 22 is pretty much how I've been picturing what an AC wave looks like. for a while. Orbit radius represents potential voltage, angle of attack and decay hertz and field density represents current.

[thx1138]

Hey Barbosi

Although it is not absolutely related to what your getting at, I cant help but think of Dirac

This was from Hotson's paper, you can look up part 2&3 if your interested, I thought this was a really good paper when I first read it, long ago now.
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf

Excellent. Thank you. I found parts 2 & 3. I'm about half way through part 2. It's taking me, a layman, some time to grasp it. But it seems to me that it is, indeed, directly related to what we are discussing.

If I am reading it correctly, what is now being called dark matter/energy could also be termed COLD matter/energy, analogous to negative Kelvin temperatures (and that's really, really cold ). Or the yin universe to our yang universe or vice versa, it all being one universe.

Thanks again. I need to finish it and read it a couple of more times and see if or how it ties into Harold Aspden's work although at first pass this seems more complete.

[barbosi]

Be cause I just mentioned Leedskalnin, I cannot miss the opportunity to point an historical fact.

The most acclaimed experiment the PMH is not his. Possibly in his studies he just found it, replicated and used it in his own discoveries.
In “Davis's Manual Of Magnetism” 13-th Edition 1865, (http://ia350627.us.archive.org/2/ite...00abbogoog.pdf) we find at page 170 the early experiment describing the phenomena.
See also the attached picture.

Related to this, Leedskalnin's "discovery" which was not his, there were applications based on the same concept, and one was revolutionizing computer evolution: the memory.

MAGNETIC CORES - PART I - PROPERTIES - YouTube

[barbosi]

While double semicircle forming a toroidal core have this interesting property - maintaining both magnetization and "polarity", that is not applicable to all cores.

Here is attached another case where the magnetic core behaves differently.

Depending of the desired effect, different cores can be used for different purpose. All I'm saying is that there is room for a lot of applications and core's geometry defines the outcome.