Just magnetic fields

[Allcanadian]

@thx1138

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.

I like this one...Ancients on Vimeo

AC

[Ruphus]

For those who prefer videos

This is what barbosi is talking about.

Video 1 - YouTube

I think its easy to see that the core and the plate's "rest" state are altered by the energized coils, once the power is cut there is no path for them to return to rest separately. They are locked in to each others rest state.


Barbosi what I also find interesting about this sort of entanglement is the reverse side, which I believe is this configuration...

"The Angus Effect" - YouTube

I'm thinking the coils bleed off the magnetic flux of the cores making them (cores) less attractive to the rotating magnets. It doesn't defeat the lenz law it is just isolated to making power from the coils. I would assume that you could match a coil load to make the primary rotor spin as if there was no ferrous cores were near magnets at all.

[barbosi]

I think Angus effect is just another way to minimize the effects of Lenz law. Personally, I first see it was demonstrated by Thane C. Heins in his ReGenX. The video that oppened my eyes was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJuwj8RhYHY

I'm not sure if it was said before, but the "detail" that was at the core was the time constant of the coil (kick @$$ self-inductance vs. ohmic resistance). That's why few posts before I was mentioning it (along with the one of a capacitor).

If one can see, in the video is just one coil. Angus effect is just a variation, possibly the parasitic capacitance of the coils with it's own time constant playing its role.

The whole limitation is that rotor has to reach a ceratin speed so the time of one magnet passing in front of the coil vs time constant of the coil....

However, a much impressive effect I found in Erfinder's demo in his thread "Self-induction", where the speed of rotor - or I shall say relative speed of a magnet to the coil - is not necessarily a factor anymore. And as far I could see, the coils did not have a ferromagnetic core, hence the self-inductance is not that great, hence the time constant I was talking about is lower.
But that is just my take and I might be wrong. From what I have seen this is my oppinion.

Regards.

[erfinder]

However, a much impressive effect I found in Erfinder's demo in his thread "Self-induction", where the speed of rotor - or I shall say relative speed of a magnet to the coil - is not necessarily a factor anymore. And as far I could see, the coils did not have a ferromagnetic core, hence the self-inductance is not that great, hence the time constant I was talking about is lower.
But that is just my take and I might be wrong. From what I have seen this is my oppinion.

Regards.

Thank you very much for starting this thread, if you don't mind I would like to reply to your post.

I am of the opinion that the so called acceleration under load effect which can be seen in certain geometries is due to CEMF - CEMF neutralization. There are two machines that are in the public domain which in my opinion more or less started the movement, the first is the Kromrey Converter, and the second is the G-field generator, the latter in my opinion is possibly more advanced version of the Kromrey Converter.

Referring specifically to the G-field, the device has a closed magnetic circuit topology. It's my view that the circuit, both electrical and magnetic, should be observed from the perspective of the induced EMF which in this case is dual. Upon being shorted out through the load of proper impedance, the two induced EMF's produce magnetic fields which are of such a direction that the two neutralize one another. The neutralization of the induced currents is the reason for the devices ability to accelerate, and at the same time is the reason why these devices "appear" to have poor output, the output is indeed low, however, we have failed to comprehend why. Is it possible that the output is low because the induced currents (the currents which drive our load) are being neutralized as they're generated? If the induced currents are indeed being neutralized as they are generated, what then is powering the load?

We cannot create nor destroy magnetism. When two magnets are brought together in attraction we don't say that the magnetism between them is neutralized? The two magnets become one magnet, the flow between the two magnets unite, and we end up with a single flow. This is the condition which is being established in systems like the Kromrey and G-field. In light of this, neutralization can be interpreted as being the unifying principle, where two opposites become one.

In a system void of opposition, the inducing current powers the load, my opinion....

Regards

[Allcanadian]

@Erfinder

We cannot create nor destroy magnetism.

In a solenoid coil we can and when a current is increasing the field expands and when a current is decreasing the field contracts to the point it no longer exists. The thing to remember here is that magnetism is magnetism, there are no different kinds of magnetism there is one kind. A magnetic field is not something in itself it is the product of interactions between other things. We need to keep in mind that for something to be true it must apply in every case not just the ones we choose.

When two magnets are brought together in attraction we don't say that the magnetism between them is neutralized?

Hmm, I do
When using a hall effect probe to map the field there is no magnetic field measured at the zero point between two fields regardless of whether they are in attraction or repulsion. As well at the center of any field there is a region which is always at ambient conditions. Google Simplex circuit, here we see that in fact science is in agreement with us because regardless of the direction of the alternating current or the magnetic field polarity the center tap is always at zero potential. This is because all forces must have a fulcrum which they originate from... the zero point.

The two magnets become one magnet, the flow between the two magnets unite, and we end up with a single flow.

I believe this may be the largest misconception we must overcome and it may help to understand the history of how this came to be. In the days of Faraday and Ampere the magnetic field was considered as a field of force and a property of space. Then the mathmaticians gave it polarity, then they gave it lines of force to indicate magnitude and then they gave it direction.

They did this not to understand what it is fundamentally but to calculate what it does in a more sensible way. Then something miraculous occurred, people reading the textbooks started to believe the poles and lines of force and flows were actually something real. We do this a lot and people tend confuse a "measure" of something as a "property" of something. For instance a ball is falling at 1 m/s, the falling is not a property of the ball it is a measure of it's action.

Magnetic fields have no lines of force and the field has no direction persay nor does it flow. The field may appear to expand into a region or contract from it following the path of least resistance. It's actually kind of funny that I have been teaching my 10 year old son about magnetism and his science project next month is to show irrefutable proof that magnetic lines of force do not exist in contradiction to every single textbook and his teachers,lol. Can you imagine that?, a 10 year old boy proving by scientific method that in fact all the adults have been mislead... that's my boy.

AC

[erfinder]

@Erfinder


In a solenoid coil we can and when a current is increasing the field expands and when a current is decreasing the field contracts to the point it no longer exists. The thing to remember here is that magnetism is magnetism, there are no different kinds of magnetism there is one kind. A magnetic field is not something in itself it is the product of interactions between other things. We need to keep in mind that for something to be true it must apply in every case not just the ones we choose.



Hmm, I do
When using a hall effect probe to map the field there is no magnetic field measured at the zero point between two fields regardless of whether they are in attraction or repulsion. As well at the center of any field there is a region which is always at ambient conditions. Google Simplex circuit, here we see that in fact science is in agreement with us because regardless of the direction of the alternating current or the magnetic field polarity the center tap is always at zero potential. This is because all forces must have a fulcrum which they originate from... the zero point.




I believe this may be the largest misconception we must overcome and it may help to understand the history of how this came to be. In the days of Faraday and Ampere the magnetic field was considered as a field of force and a property of space. Then the mathmaticians gave it polarity, then they gave it lines of force to indicate magnetude and then they gave it direction.

They did this not to understand what it is fundamentally but to calculate what it does in a more sensible way. Then something miraculous occurred, people reading the textbooks started to believe the poles and lines of force and flows were actually something real. We do this a lot and people tend confuse a "measure" of something as a "property" of something. For instance a ball is falling at 1 m/s, the falling is not a property of the ball it is a measure of it's action.

Magnetic fields have no lines of force and the field has no direction persay nor does it flow. The field may appear to expand into a region or contract from it following the path of least resistance. It's actually kind of funny that I have been teaching my 10 year old son about magnetism and his science project next month is to show irrefutable proof that magnetic lines of force do not exist in contradiction to every single textbook and his teachers,lol. Can you imagine that?, a 10 year old boy proving by scientific method that in fact all the adults have been mislead... that's my boy.

AC

I post my opinions, to some this is probably a crime, but I do it in the hope that something good can come of it. I am no authority, and have yet to encounter one, but I am hopeful.

Reviewing my post I can see instances where I forgot to add the words "in my opinion", in the future I will include those words in the beginning and end of a post, that way, my position is established.

In the grand scheme of things there is no right or wrong, acknowledging this places one in an interesting position, one which allows you to see that there is nothing to prove, and more importantly noting to defend. I therefore feel no need to comment on anything you have stated. The purpose of this post was to acknowledge my forgetting to establish my position, that of one with an opinion at the beginning and end of my post.


Regards

[Allcanadian]

I would like to share a story with everyone which may put things in perspective.
For as long as I can remember I have been an Engineer building and inventing things and a Scientist proving matters for myself using the methods of science. I remember that in grade 8 I felt something was out of place with my teachers and I did not know why. They seemed confident and seemed to understand what they were teaching but as I said something was not right.

As a young scientist I then took measures to prove the matter for myself. When the Grade 8 math teacher who was also the principal at the time left the room I replaced his teachers edition textbook with all the answers in the back with a generic students edition, hehe. Well the 40 year old math teacher came back and as usual wrote the problem on the blackboard and then proceeded to screw up a rather simple problem. Then as usual he went to the back of his textbook to find the right answer and something peculiar happened. He opened the textbook and found no answers and then his face went white and he just stood there in front of all of us and stared at his textbook finally looking up after a few moments. He then asked the smartest student to come up and finish the problem as well as do the next three.

Now the truth of the matter became quite obvious to me, the 40 year old adult teaching math did not understand grade 8 math. I continued to perform this experiment on many teachers over the years and unfortunately most of them failed my test. Now how is it that so many teachers can be proven to not understand the grade school curriculum they are supposed to be teaching?.

You see our teachers seldom teach anything in regards to the logic behind problem solving and they are mostly parrots simply repeating what they have been trained to do. There is little or no real insight, no creative thought, no logical premise to problem solving. They tell us here is the answer you need to get and you must memorize this process to get this answer.

I came to understand that teachers are seldom "teachers" they simply repeat what they themselves have been taught if they can actually remember it. As such if you actually want to learn something new then your going to have to do it yourself. There will be nobody to hold your hand, there will be little if no prior art and a great deal of hard work and frustration involved. Real learning is very hard but I think we all understand it is well worth the effort. Start at the beginning and work your way up proving the matter for yourself as you go... that is learning.

AC

[Ruphus]

destruction of b field

AC

I agree with most of what you say about the b field expanding and contracting, but I disagree with you that it contracts to zero. The EM field always exists in matter we simply exaggerate one side or the other from it's rest state. Too much and the electrons gives the excess off as photons. This is my thinking anyway.

[Allcanadian]

@Erfinder

In the grand scheme of things there is no right or wrong, acknowledging this places one in an interesting position, one which allows you to see that there is nothing to prove, and more importantly noting to defend. I therefore feel no need to comment on anything you have stated. The purpose of this post was to acknowledge my forgetting to establish my position, that of one with an opinion at the beginning and end of my post.

I understand at times I may seem a little too honest in my opinions and it may seem confrontational but that is not my intent and I apologize in advance. It is just that I get very frustrated when people used general terms in a context so generalized that I'm not sure it actually means anything anymore. When I think it is with precision and every single detail of every step concerning cause and effect must be justified in itself and the whole.

Generally when I make a post I am looking for feedback and justification of an opinion. As you say there may be no right or wrong however I believe an opinion means nothing without justification. In any case I can't say that I care what most people think I want to know why they think it. Once we have established the "why" then we can debate the "how" and once the how is known we can all move forward.

Have you ever noticed that we can read post after post and yet most are not actually saying anything, very little is understood or even implied and it all just dissipates into some kind of unintelligible fog?.

AC

[barbosi]

Allcanadian, I sense some frustration and I cannot find a cause other than we don't have free energy devices yet.

Everyone posting here is sharing his thoughts by his own will and regardless the "quality" of message, I have to admit that his a share is a gift. Is up to the reader to make use of the message or discard it.

Have you ever noticed that we can read post after post and yet most are not actually saying anything, very little is understood or even implied and it all just dissipates into some kind of unintelligible fog?.

I understand and I tend to compare this with the days of Babilon falling. We use words with individual meaning well understood, but the overall message resonates differently with each individual.

However, if you have to convey your own message and you have doubts it will not be understood, give it a try. Offer your opinion with justification as you like it and let people digest it. As I understand is related to magnetic fields?

Regards.

[Allcanadian]

@Ruphus

I agree with most of what you say about the b field expanding and contracting, but I disagree with you that it contracts to zero. The EM field always exists in matter we simply exaggerate one side or the other from it's rest state. Too much and the electrons gives the excess off as photons. This is my thinking anyway.

Disagreement is a natural state, and you make a very good point concerning the EM field. My question is simple, we know how magnetism acts and we have libraries full of books describing what happens but not one single paragraph anywhere which tells us what it is fundamentally.

My thinking is that the EM field may always exist regarding matter however we do not know why it is there or whether matter results in a field or the field being present results in matter, they are equal. In any case I have come to a conclusion which is anything but obvious from a conventional perspective.

I will try to justify my premise which I hope someone will try to tear apart for me. Now let's say we had a room full of speakers pulsing inward/outward as speakers do creating what we call sound. However there is no such thing as "sound" persay it is simply pressure waves which vary periodically which hit our ear drums and the brain interprets this as something we call "sound", in reality it is pressure waves.

Next we direct and modulate all the pressure waves from the speakers in such a way that they all combine at one singular point in the center of the room. At this point we could conceive that if the pressure waves were of a large magnitude/high frequency a small region of high air pressure might evolve in a singular region we could "feel". This high pressure region may appear as having substance and apply a tangible force to objects. Which begs the question is the tangible force measured in the singular region something in itself not unlike a "field" or is it simply a product of something external to it?.

If we were oblivious to the external source concentrating at a singular point then how would we know whether the "field of force" is something or a result of something else?. Now we replace the pressure waves with UHF wide spectrum EM waves and replace a region of high pressure air with a modulated field due to moving charges and ....Wala we have a simple explanation for a mysterious field nobody can seem to explain.

There must be an explanation as to what a magnetic field is fundamentally and it is my intent to find out exactly what it is.
Comments?

AC

[Ruphus]

I once thought the b field was the "shadow" of the e field and visa versa. When moved the shadow is of the other is visible because it is now shifted. But I couldnt get anywhere with this. Mainly I feel there is no distinct separation and we should always consider a b field or e field as a stationary em field because once either is in motion we see the shadow of the other.

[Allcanadian]

@Ruphus

I once thought the b field was the "shadow" of the e field and visa versa. When moved the shadow is of the other is visible because it is now shifted. But I couldnt get anywhere with this. Mainly I feel there is no distinct separation and we should always consider a b field or e field as a stationary em field because once either is in motion we see the shadow of the other.

I think it helps to understand the true nature of the problem. We are trying to define B which is undefined using another term E which is also undefined, lol. Which is kind of like saying I hope to understand something using two or more other things I also do not understand... I hope you can appreciate the magnitude of the problem here.

The real problem in my opinion is complacency and people are throwing about terms as if they understand them when to my knowledge nobody in the history of mankind fully understands them. Not unlike wormholes, Oh thats just a wormhole nothing special... Ehem excuse me first they have never been proven to exist, we have never seen one or measured one and are theoretical at best. A wormhole is not unlike a unicorn, a fairy or bigfoot which are also theoretical at best.

In any case the best thing I ever did was to stop making assumptions about things I do not understand. I do not know what the primary fields E,B and G are fundamentally and these fields seem to dictate the actions of everything else therefore this seems like a good place to start understanding something.

Have you noticed the thread is called "just magnetic fields" and yet I am the only person here to ask what it is fundamentally instead of simply how it acts, that is a huge problem in my opinion.

AC

[ewizard]

LOL AC that was a good story about the teachers and replacing their books. Having worked in a large educational system for many years (not as a teacher) I can say it certainly fits. I'll never forget the time a teacher was wandering around in her class asking where her coffee mug was. It was in her own hand.

Perhaps magnetic fields are more photonic than we have considered although I don't think that really explains much:
Robins Can Actually See Magnetic Fields (But Only in One Eye)

[ewizard]

I decided to ask my other half what she thought a magnetic field is. I found her answer somewhat thought provoking. She said it is a resonance of cohesive fields. I pointed out that like fields repel each other. But what was interesting was the mention of resonance. Possibly some sort of resonance we don't understand yet. If we assume an atom is composed of a proton with electrons spinning around it then maybe we can assume it creates a certain resonance (probably at very high frequency). I will assume that another object or atom at the same frequency would repel. But one which was just slightly lower or higher in resonant frequency might attract in order to create balance between the two. I know molecules of different substances each have their own nuclear magnetic resonance signature and this is how some are identified.
Just some off-the-wall thoughts not based on any text book learning