ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[aljhoa]

Ken Says dumbed down box of rocks, Einstein was an idiot, talking out
of his a$$zole What a mouth on this guy.

2 video's

Aether Interaction

Helical Trajectories of Planets and Suns


Al

[BroMikey]

Ken Says dumbed down box of rocks, Einstein was an idiot, talking out
of his a$$zole What a mouth on this guy.

2 video's

One guy with lots of hair and One with none.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QZzVoMvfh8[/VIDEO]


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjSA27y3WPs[/VIDEO]


[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JanM8QKDzWw#t=18[/VIDEO]

[Dog-One]

Dielectric Inertial Plane

Guys,

May want to take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wQZ1ZCsrRo

It appears Russ is actually able to alter where the dielectric inertial plane comes to rest when creating a magnet.

I'm not really sure what to make of this or how it fits with Ken's theory.

[bistander]

Magnetic viewing film

Hi Ufo,

Negative Bi,

No Flux Lines means just that...no flux line, no matter if perpendicular or parallel.

This is not about "penetrating" or "not penetrating" the film.

From your expert Mr. Ardizzone:

This mass grouping together of nickel particles causes a darkened appearance to the film directly where the magnetic field is impinging on the film.

Look up the definition of "impinging". You find synonyms like: affect, touch, intrude on, invade, cut through, violate. When talking about a film 5 mils thick, I think penetrate describes it pretty well. Flux which has no perpendicular component below the film will never impinge on the film. So a light area or line on the viewing film does not mean there is no flux below the film in that area; it just means there is no flux in the film in that area.

bi

{edit}
Above is the description which I believe to be accurate. Below is what Ufo accepts.

VIEWING FILM FOR DC MAGNETIC FIELDS
A DISCUSSION
By: Vincent A. Ardizzone, EE
Executive President Product Development
Magne-Rite, Inc.

Abstract: The ability to visually see dc magnetic field patterns provides certain advantages to manufacturers in the area of quality control. A process employing the micro-encapsulation of colloidal nickel has made possible the development of a magnetic viewing medium that is both paper-thin and highly flexible. This new viewing medium renders the typical bulky, rigid dc magnetic field viewing devices obsolete.

Key Words: Quality control, Micro-encapsulation, Colloidal Nickel, DC Magnetic Field

I. INTRODUCTION
Various attempts have been made over the years to provide a viewing medium for dc magnetic fields. The majority has used magnetically sensitive particles suspended in a fluid medium contained in a flat rigid enclosure. These devices provided a fairly effective way to view dc magnetic field orientations emanating from flat magnetic surfaces.

As electromechanical devices have advanced in design and complexity, however, the need for more elaborate magnetic components has risen proportionately. To fill this need, developments in permanent magnet manufacturing have evolved utilizing new methods of producing high-energy magnets through bonding and injection molding processes. These new methods of manufacture have made possible the mass production of permanent magnets which possess geometric configurations and tolerances never before attainable. As a result, permanent magnet designs today often assume amorphous shapes, which render typical rigid viewing devices useless.

With the exception of highly expensive electronic scanning devices which map points of magnetic intensity and present a visual depiction of flux lines onto a computer monitor, only a highly flexible magnetic viewing device can offer the ability of viewing a magnetic field emanating from a contoured magnetic surface in a simple and inexpensive format.

II. DISCUSSION
A unique process of micro-encapsulation was developed which allows a very thin 2-mil layer of magnetically sensitive slurry to be bonded to a 5-mil sheet of plastic film. In the encapsulation process, colloidal nickel particles suspended in the slurry become engulfed within gelatinous membranes. The slurry is then coated onto the plastic film and allowed to dry. After complete drying, the particles maintain freedom of movement within the gelatinous membranes.

When a dc magnetic field is applied to the bonded film, the nickel particles congregate in alignment with the flux lines emanating from the dc magnetic source. This mass grouping together of nickel particles causes a darkened appearance to the film directly where the magnetic field is impinging on the film. As a result, an exact two-dimensional image or impression of the magnetic pole or pole pattern (if there are more than one) is produced. This image is easily erased once the film is removed from the magnetic source and the nickel particles are allowed to freely re-disperse within their gelatinous cells. A common bar magnet can be swiped across the film to ensure complete erasure of the previous image, or by reapplying the film to another magnetic source the new image produced will completely replace the old one.

It should also be pointed out that, due to the small size of the colloidal nickel particles, the film can detect fields as low as only a few gauss and still produce and clear image.

A particularly useful application of this viewing film is in the identification of changes in magnetic polarity. As an example, if two magnets identical in size and shape were placed adjacent to each other, as shown in figure 1, and one wished to quickly determine if they were identical or opposite in polarity, for instance, placing the film on the magnet's surface would immediately reveal the answer. If the magnets were opposite in polarity, for instance, the film would show the typically darkened areas where each magnetic pole is located but would also clearly reveal a much lighter line where the magnetic fields change polarity. See figure 2. The lighter line is produced because no flux lines are present at the border where magnetic fields change over in polarity and hence the nickel particles in the film do not congregate along that line. If the magnets were of the same polarity the film would show a solid darkened region over the entire area of both magnetic poles with no line of separation. See figure 3.

Figure 1:
Two Adjacent Magnets

Figure 2:
Film Revealing Change Over in Polarity Figure 3:
Film Revealing Identical Polarities
Needless to say, for a multi-polar arrangement of magnets, the film would reveal a series of light lines depicting each change in magnetic polarity.


III. CONCLUSION
Clearly, magnetic viewing film offers distinct advantages over the bulky and rigid devices available. Most notably, due to the film's high flexibility, it easily conforms to magnetic surfaces with high degrees of concavity and convexity. Also, because the film is so thin and can be cut down to practically any size without losing its properties, it can be used in tighter places inaccessible to the bulkier, unalterable devices. Finally, since there are no moving or electronic parts, the film never needs maintenance or repair. Obviously, the same cannot be said for magnetic scanners, not to mention their prohibitive cost. Simplicity of function, ease of use, reliability, and economy of cost all make dc magnetic viewing film a logical choice for manufacturers who need to check the magnetic polarity of their dc magnetic array components or merely to detect the presence of dc filed components that are obscured from view.

{second edit}

Maybe there are 2 ways of making magnetic viewing film.

[BroMikey]

I do not know what is going on with the CRT and don't care to find out. Much the same as my take on your attitude about FEMM. And if you were to take an X-ray of a magnet, what would that look like?

I got it why not sonar? Or radar? Maybe a cat scan? How about
an ultrasound? Now we got it going on, huh. You are way out
there dude, get a grip. I don't know if I would care? What in the world!!

I'm sorry UFO, I can't help myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAzrg5uFTFg

[bistander]

Magnetic viewing film replies

Here are my replies, Ufo:

You just don't care?!!...

Is that some kind of "Scientific in Denial" expression?...

It is just my way of saying that I do not see a correlation between the patterns on the CRT and magnetic flux from the sample. It is obvious there is an interference between the sample's field and the field produced by the CRT. The CRT is playing an active role whereas the viewing film is passive. I know why the viewing film behaves as it does. I do not know what is going on with the CRT and don't care to find out. Much the same as my take on your attitude about FEMM. And if you were to take an X-ray of a magnet, what would that look like? Maybe I'd care, maybe not. Some tests are interesting to me, some not. Some tests are valid, some not. Some tests are useful, some not. I guess we each decide.

It means you don't care about the NOBEL PRIZE AWARD WINNER Joseph John Thompson for his outrageous work?

Just one of them...related to our conversation here...:

Good for him, but I don't see the link to viewing flux pattern of a sample magnet placed on the other side of the screen. I don't think that was Mr. Thompson's intended use.

Excellent bold out and underlined statements by you Bi...!!

So, you think that all that "Spatial Spectrum" observed in Magnetic Fields through whatever methods is NOT the one that actually makes a motor or a transformer works?

Not the shape and location of the field of a free standing sample.

By the way, did you just forget Generators in that list above?...or was it intentional because you are not sure?

Motor. Generator. Same thing. Just a difference in direction of torque and excitation.

So, according to you...which one IS the actual part of the magnetic field that does the real work?

The field does. Like asking which part of the gravitational field does the work when two masses are attracted and moving towards each other. Like you think you could remove part of the field and see the same results? Maybe I don't understand the question.

The one intrinsically attached JUST to the IRON CORES INNER MASS PARTICLES of ANY those Machines?...Which are not reflected by any imaging methods?

Take that image of the 2 pole PM motor stator from post #216. Do you think the viewing film image would be the same if the rotor was in place? Try it.

But even then, it is just the fringing and leakage flux which will interact with the viewing film. The main flux is contained within the iron magnetic path except for the air gap between the rotor and stator. Even if you cut the motor in half perpendicular to its axis and placed the viewing film over the cut section, only fringing flux would pass through the film because the useful flux is parallel to it and will not influence the film.

The viewing film cannot sense the magnetic flux inside the magnet or inside the iron. It only reacts to flux passing through it.

Maybe that is why there MUST BE ALWAYS a very CLOSED GAP, when talking about Motors or Generators in your beliefs?

Not sure I understand this question. But motors and generators need a gap in the magnetic circuit if they are to rotate. And within a reasonable limit, typically, the smaller that gap is, the better is the machine performance. The gap is the primary reluctance in a well designed motor (or generator) and mmf (excitation) must be supplied to overcome it. That excitation requires power in a wound field machine. In the PM machine, it lowers the useful flux from the magnet.

I would love to hear (sorry, I meant read) your answers to all above questions...

I tried.

Thanks, and I believe your post above contains the best info you have ever produced on this Thread.

You're welcome.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Bistander,

I wanted to keep this particular part of your previous post separate, because I believe it is excellent, about something you wrote further on...

And regarding the CRT, I don't care for the representation presented with that.

You just don't care?!!...

Is that some kind of "Scientific in Denial" expression?...

It means you don't care about the NOBEL PRIZE AWARD WINNER Joseph John Thompson for his outrageous work?

Just one of them...related to our conversation here...:

Experiments on the magnetic deflection of cathode rays by J.J. Thompson

Thomson first investigated the magnetic deflection of cathode rays. Cathode rays were produced in the side tube on the left of the apparatus and passed through the anode into the main bell jar, where they were deflected by a magnet. Thomson detected their path by the fluorescence on a squared screen in the jar. He found that whatever the material of the anode and the gas in the jar, the deflection of the rays was the same, suggesting that the rays were of the same form whatever their origin

I have mentioned before that all these "field viewing schemes" do not display the true field in the magnet or in the magnetic circuit which does useful work in our machines. The magnetic field of a stand-alone magnet or coil held behind a film or cell in space is considerably different than it is in a motor or transformer. What the film or cell shows is mostly leakage flux (non useful). The CRT places the viewing source even further away from the sample and presents a complex interaction of fields from the sample and CRT. It makes pretty patterns, but worthless IMO. I am still undecided about the ferrocell. I understand the viewing film and know what I am seeing with it. Same goes for iron filings.

Regards,

bi

Excellent bold out and underlined statements by you Bi...!!

So, you think that all that "Spatial Spectrum" observed in Magnetic Fields through whatever methods is NOT the one that actually makes a motor or a transformer works?

By the way, did you just forget Generators in that list above?...or was it intentional because you are not sure?

So, according to you...which one IS the actual part of the magnetic field that does the real work?

The one intrinsically attached JUST to the IRON CORES INNER MASS PARTICLES of ANY those Machines?...Which are not reflected by any imaging methods?

Maybe that is why there MUST BE ALWAYS a very CLOSED GAP, when talking about Motors or Generators in your beliefs?

I would love to hear (sorry, I meant read) your answers to all above questions...


Thanks, and I believe your post above contains the best info you have ever produced on this Thread.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

And no perpendicular component of flux means the same thing.

Negative Bi,

No Flux Lines means just that...no flux line, no matter if perpendicular or parallel.

That there is no flux line present in the viewing film at the point. There may be parallel lines of flux just below the viewing film, but if there is no perpendicular component then no flux will penetrate the film and a lighter point or line will be seen. We're saying the same thing. I know how the stuff works.

This is not about "penetrating" or "not penetrating" the film.

This is about Gathering/Grouping a higher population of particles in one specific region of film due to Stronger Field Presence make, generate darker areas. However, this does not apply to Repulse Mode though...have you figured out the lighter line ONLY shows up between Opposite Poles and not like poles?

A lighter line on the viewing film does not mean there is zero flux in the space below the film. This is evidenced by the fact that the steel ball travels to the edge of the disc where the flux density is the greatest yet where the viewing film shows a lighter circle. You can see this in the video after 8:25 when he puts the steel ball on top of the film.

And the light line on the viewing film above the middle of a bar or cylinder magnet is due to no flux passing through the film however there is flux in the magnet parallel to the plane of the film. I disagree with your latest diagram.

Regards,

bi

Besides you are all confused here you brought a wrong example about the ball rolling to the edge of magnet...

Think how a Tornado sucks up a House...right from its center highest negative pressure region...then, after House is in starts spinning and where does House goes?...Yes, exactly to the very edge of the Vortex on the very top.

If you were flying on top of a Tornado, with a helicopter holding that House, dump it, where it will go?

Exactly to the vortex edge.

Back on View Film, please realize this film renders THREE Shades of Green, NOT just Two.

1-Darkest Region means Field Presence.

2- Lighter Region, No Field Presence.

3-Normal Shade of film. due to even blended particles per square area (when we "clean" film with another magnet from further away.

Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

No line = no perpendicular line

Hi Ufo,

The lighter line is produced because no flux lines are present

And no perpendicular component of flux means the same thing. That there is no flux line present in the viewing film at the point. There may be parallel lines of flux just below the viewing film, but if there is no perpendicular component then no flux will penetrate the film and a lighter point or line will be seen. We're saying the same thing. I know how the stuff works.

A lighter line on the viewing film does not mean there is zero flux in the space below the film. This is evidenced by the fact that the steel ball travels to the edge of the disc where the flux density is the greatest yet where the viewing film shows a lighter circle. You can see this in the video after 8:25 when he puts the steel ball on top of the film.

And the light line on the viewing film above the middle of a bar or cylinder magnet is due to no flux passing through the film however there is flux in the magnet parallel to the plane of the film. I disagree with your latest diagram.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Particles? Flakes? What's the difference? A flake is a flat particle. So what? And your expert and I agree on what causes the lighter areas.

"My Expert" opinion:

Source:VIEWING FILM FOR DC MAGNETIC FIELDS
A DISCUSSION
By: Vincent A. Ardizzone, EE
Executive President Product Development
Magne-Rite, Inc.

[...]

The film would show the typically darkened areas where each magnetic pole is located but would also clearly reveal a much lighter line where the magnetic fields change polarity.
The lighter line is produced because no flux lines are present

[...]

Is it that hard for you to understand the difference between "NO FLUX LINES ARE PRESENT AT ALL", versus PERPENDICULAR LINES, as you are thinking wrongfully?

Actually they all curve around and self connect to form closed paths.

Correct, great!!, except the "self connection" is not between poles but from top part of pole to equatorial part of SAME Pole.

[IMG][/IMG]

There are lighter lines where there is no Flux...and right next IS FLUX, in other words, when particles group very compact due to a field perpendicular lines presence, they leave an absence or less populated area which becomes lighter.

The same exact deal takes place between TWO ALIKE POLES, when we approach Two Magnets in Attraction:

[IMG][/IMG]

That center line shows up in the exact Middle Space between Both Opposite Poles.

Yes and that is what the graph and FEMM image show[/U]. Notice the label directly above the graph: Field Strength along the surface of a D82 Disc Magnet. Along the surface is exactly the edge view of the magnetic viewing film as it is laid on top of the disc. The Field Strength is the vector quantity of the curved flux lines as they pass thru that surface (film). No where is it inferred that there are straight lines. The x and y components, or horizontal and vertical, or parallel and perpendicular, are the directional coordinates of the vector at each point on the line (surface or film) represented by the purple and green traces on the graph. The heavy blue trace represents the magnitude of that vector at the respective location.

You keep mentioning FEMM as if it would be "another magnetic field viewing method", when in reality it is NOT!

FEMM is just a MIMIC, a MIRROR COPY about the way Iron Filings display, this Software has been programmed according to iron pattern development around a Filed, is that hard to accept or understand?

If FEMM would have magnetic Sensors, attached to hardware and ran by a specific data reading-interpreting-processing capabilities...then it would be a completely "AUTONOMOUS FIELD VIEWER", but, unfortunately it is NOT.

FEMM is a completely DEPENDENT SOFTWARE from previously "built in data" based on pre-loaded parameters that display according to the User Input data from magnet, electromagnet, shape, number of turns, gauge, Input Currents and Voltage...etc,etc.

With your (or Ken's) theory, what causes the light circle in the view film? Is it a dielectric inertial cylinder?

The same, exact thing that "my Expert" mentioned in first quoted text here:

My Expert says: The lighter line is produced because no flux lines are present

Regards,

bi

Regards, Bi


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Straight lines?

Hi Ufo,

Particles? Flakes? What's the difference? A flake is a flat particle. So what? And your expert and I agree on what causes the lighter areas.

In either Iron Filings or Ken's Theory, there are absolutely no straight lines in a magnetic field.

I have never said there were.

They all curved out to space.

Actually they all curve around and self connect to form closed paths.

Therefore, the gathering of particles in film is not that drastic/radical, like Parallel or Perpendicular.

Yes, I know and have not said otherwise.

It obeys A SMOOTH BLENDING of Darker Shades. And that is what we see there.

Yes and that is what the graph and FEMM image show. Notice the label directly above the graph: Field Strength along the surface of a D82 Disc Magnet. Along the surface is exactly the edge view of the magnetic viewing film as it is laid on top of the disc. The Field Strength is the vector quantity of the curved flux lines as they pass thru that surface (film). No where is it inferred that there are straight lines. The x and y components, or horizontal and vertical, or parallel and perpendicular, are the directional coordinates of the vector at each point on the line (surface or film) represented by the purple and green traces on the graph. The heavy blue trace represents the magnitude of that vector at the respective location.

With your (or Ken's) theory, what causes the light circle in the view film? Is it a dielectric inertial cylinder?

And regarding the CRT, I don't care for the representation presented with that. I have mentioned before that all these "field viewing schemes" do not display the true field in the magnet or in the magnetic circuit which does useful work in our machines. The magnetic field of a stand-alone magnet or coil held behind a film or cell in space is considerably different than it is in a motor or transformer. What the film or cell shows is mostly leakage flux (non useful). The CRT places the viewing source even further away from the sample and presents a complex interaction of fields from the sample and CRT. It makes pretty patterns, but worthless IMO. I am still undecided about the ferrocell. I understand the viewing film and know what I am seeing with it. Same goes for iron filings.

Regards,

bi

[Ben2503]

mind gym

The thing about a classroom? Yes, the classroom setting needs to
have one instructor such as yourself and if others want to comment
they raise their hand and then when they speak they show the
instructor that they are only asking not telling. Ya see what I mean?

Yo Bro
What if the teacher wants to activate and open your creative mind and asks you to explain this?

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F2JFDpTE_ls[/VIDEO]

What would be your analysis?

Stay cool and best regards,
Ben

[BroMikey]

Faraday NEVER WROTE ABSOLUTELY ANY LAW about Induction, get informed, engage brain with fingers.



Faraday barely finished Elementary School Math...that was all he reached.

Faraday Formula was written by James Clerk Maxwell.

All other "Mathematicians" at the time, rejected his Theory, JUST BECAUSE "Lines of Force" could not be expressed through their math equations or may I say "capacity/ability" to find it?.

THAT IS THE REAL HISTORY BEHIND FARADAY'S INDUCTION.

So your ways to "approve" a statement by someone else is completely ignoring the real facts in historical frame.



That in my language is called BS!

IDK in Dutch how it is called...plus I don't F Care.

UFO I'm glad we are still friends.
It's about high time, dont ya think?

No but really UFO I learn so much I never knew about the history
as well as the recent science emerging in this field. If we could
get on with this learning experience it would be nice. All of the
disruptions seem to keep you repeating and repeating yourself and
this does not help the classroom one bit.

The thing about a classroom? Yes, the classroom setting needs to
have one instructor such as yourself and if others want to comment
they raise their hand and then when they speak they show the
instructor that they are only asking not telling. Ya see what I mean?

How would it be if all of the followers of a subject all talked at once
right over top of the leader position? So we can't have this kind of
disorder anymore. I'm not saying that others who have opinions must
fall on their knees to input ideas, just that they should show some
respect. When they don't show the classroom any respect I get
boiling mad but I have learned to be patent.

I see I am not alone when it comes to my above statement.

Nice repeats tho, I learned something everytime.

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

I found some additional references to support my (and Ernst's) view on the film.

Speak for yourself Bistander, you don't need to speak for anyone else.

There is NO OIL in view film, and those are NOT FLAKES EITHER.

I have cut so much view film, and never even felt a greasy touch ever!.

They are PARTICLES, very, very small, microscopic Nickel particles.

And the substance is a very viscous gel., to the point it don't leak when Film is cut.

I have brought in previously, what I consider an AUTHORITY IN VIEWING FILM, with related LINK.

Isn't that enough for you to understand and stop searching for other data?, I mean Internet is full of crap as well...gotta learn how to "FILTER" between reliable sources and BS.

All this brings is more confusion and unnecessary discussion.

Concerning the light lines seen on the viewing film, refer to my recent post and the FEMM of the disc magnet. Notice the graph to the right of it. It breaks down the flux vector into the horizontal component (x comp, purple trace, parallel to the film) and the vertical component (y comp, green trace, perpendicular to the film). So when viewing the film from above, it looks like this:


The y component or green trace is the perpendicular flux through the film. The graph clearly shows it being zero at .25 inches. Hence the light circle of one half inch diameter on the one half inch diameter magnet. The rest of the film is dark because there is perpendicular flux shown by the non-zero values of y.

I took the image of the viewing film from Ben's post #208 video at 8:25 min. BTW, I disagree with the fellow in the video when he claims the light circle on the viewing film is caused by edge currents in the magnet.

Regards,

bi

In either Iron Filings or Ken's Theory, there are absolutely no straight lines in a magnetic field.

They all curved out to space.

Therefore, the gathering of particles in film is not that drastic/radical, like Parallel or Perpendicular.

It obeys A SMOOTH BLENDING of Darker Shades. And that is what we see there.

Take a look below:

[IMG][/IMG]

North Pole as seen in an Old Scope CRT, both left and right top as the Bottom Right is the SOUTH POLE.

See the difference?

Why haven't you even mentioned anything about the similarity between view film and CRT in the main two magnetic interactions, Repulse and Attract displayed here before by me?


Maybe because you are still looking ON LINE for an answer/explanation?

Don't waste your time...You WON'T find it...except in Ken's Book or Thread.

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Distinti gives you a correct explanation in his video. Why do I think that is correct?
Because it is in line with Faraday's induction law, and mathematically correct.

Ernst.

Faraday NEVER WROTE ABSOLUTELY ANY LAW about Induction, get informed, engage brain with fingers.

and mathematically correct.

Faraday barely finished Elementary School Math...that was all he reached.

Faraday Formula was written by James Clerk Maxwell.

All other "Mathematicians" at the time, rejected his Theory, JUST BECAUSE "Lines of Force" could not be expressed through their math equations or may I say "capacity/ability" to find it?.

THAT IS THE REAL HISTORY BEHIND FARADAY'S INDUCTION.

So your ways to "approve" a statement by someone else is completely ignoring the real facts in historical frame.

Let me put it even simpler (numerical, 1,2,3 & 4) form, in case you still don't understand it:

By chronological order:

1- Faraday Discovers Induction.

2- All Math brilliant guys rejected Faraday's Theory for lack of explanation.

3- Maxwell writes a full book explaining it mathematically.

4- Faraday Law is written.

The thing you lack to understand here is that IF Faraday would not have discovered Induction from his EXPERIMENTS...NONE of the rest would have EVER taken place.

Still, according to your above quoted statement ...you consider 4 and 3 the "Key" to "approve" or not to approve Faraday's Induction.


That in my language is called BS!

IDK in Dutch how it is called...plus I don't F Care.