top

The Nature of the Field

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Magnetism Links and References    Page 1 of 1

Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:57 pm PostPost subject: The Nature of the Field
upndwn
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 15
Location: Canada

Reply with quote

HEY OC
...tons of great links, still making my way through, but here is one that I think bears attention. No idea where it came from but I feel is worthy of notice.

http://www.geocities.com/terella1/

Hope this meets with your interest
Cheers
Ray
_________________
If you're not the lead dog, the scenery never changes..!
Something to say...? Put your hand up and cover your mouth...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:40 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Yep. I think quite a few of the more, what Patrick Moore patronisingly calls "independent thinkers",
have realised for a long time that magnetic fields sense the absolute frame of reference and are not
rigidly coupled to the visible magnets they inhabit.

Magnetic Fields are like the inside of an egg and the visible material of a magnet is akin to the shell.

At the macro scale a magnet appears to consist of inert material but as
one goes down in scale one encounters more and more motion.
The magnetic field of a magnet is the tangible manifestation of one
level of this fine scale motion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:11 pm PostPost subject: Re: The Nature of the Field
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

upndwn wrote:
HEY OC
...tons of great links, still making my way through, but here is one that I think bears attention. No idea where it came from but I feel is worthy of notice.

http://www.geocities.com/terella1/

Hope this meets with your interest
Cheers
Ray


Interesting follow up article on the above link.
http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Neutron_Spin_Coherence.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:49 pm PostPost subject:
JoinTheFun
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Jan 2008
Posts: 38
Location: Netherlands

Reply with quote

A thought : location and position of magnetic devices cannot be viewed independent of their environment, their position relative to our planet's fields. Make sense ?
To name but one, a device that works as such somewhere in Canada might not work on other locations in the Force.
_________________
Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:44 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Just put the polar end of a neo against an old color monitor you don't really care much for and spin it. The colors will not rotate with the magnet. The field remains fixed relative to the monitor while the magnet spins as much as you like. (Did this experiment with a telescopic pickup magnet I bought at the autoparts store a long time ago) Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:18 pm PostPost subject:
chrisbis
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 279

Reply with quote

Harvey,

Hi.

Im not upto ur standard on the nuclea fizzx sides of things, as i guess u are, so i have a question for u-

I was reveiwing MyLows latest vids, and he was describing his various combinations of magnets rotors and stators, and it got me pose-ing this Q....

When a magnet has depleted and for want of a better phrase- 'died', wot has happened to the magnetic force that was once present in the magnet?
Where has 'it' (magnatism) gone Confused

I know the source of the initial magnetic power was an inducement by electromagnatism, via a inducing coil, but where has the power of the magnets gone to?

Is it in the great ether of time, space and gravity Question Question
_________________
underunity rules till proven overwise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:03 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

@Chrisbis,

Magnetism is a ripple in space-time. When all the atoms of a material align in a specific way, and vibrate at a certain frequency, these ripples add together. But this is a two way street. If atoms moving cause ripples, then ripples can cause atoms to move. In most materials this causes random effects like a bunch of kids in pool splashing around bumping into each other. But certain materials are more like synchronized swimmers that work of the waves of their neighbors. AlNiCo is somewhere in between.

Specifically, areas in the magnet called domains tend to work off of each other. As they produce synchronized ripples in space-time, the ripples in space-time they produce, in turn, initiates more domain alignment. This is a type of latching and is a product of self resonance. The domains will hold unless disturbed. There are several things that can disturb the domains; Heat, Shock, Strong Reverse Magnetic Fields, Electromagnetic propagation (electrical current or radiation through the domain), Positronic Collisions, just to name a few. Another temporary and never discussed effect is when the magnet moves through space-time faster than the ripples it produces and the magnetic field fades to zero in front of it's travel like sound in front of a supersonic jet.

We mentioned heat and we normally associate this with the curie point in magnetic materials. But we cannot overlook the propensity of materials like AlNiCo to return to their natural physical structure at room temperatures. This type of heat energy creates antirythmic atomic movements that can disrupt the synchronicity of the ripples and cascade backward into domain normalization (destruction). One way to prevent this is to couple the ripples (flux) back to the other pole through a high permiability 'keeper'. This holds the threshold of the density above the random vibrations produced by ambient heat energy so demag does not occur. But remember, the material would like to return to its previous unmagnetized state.

So the magnetism doesn't 'go' anywhere. The source that causes it just ceases to exist. We don't say the 'liquid' of a molten candle 'goes' anywhere with the flame dies out. Likewise we don't say the magnetism 'goes' anywhere either.

I'm sorry if this is a bit of rambling - its been a lousy afternoon and I'm having trouble staying focused.

Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:28 am PostPost subject:
chrisbis
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 279

Reply with quote

Harvey,

Thanks for that most informative reply.

I will digest ur post and return with poss more Q's for u- as long as u don't mind that is. Hmmmm.

And we return after these short messages..............
_________________
underunity rules till proven overwise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:33 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

chrisbis wrote:
When a magnet has depleted and for want of a better phrase- 'died', wot has happened to the magnetic force that was once present in the magnet?
Where has 'it' (magnatism) gone :?


This might be an oversimplified explanation, but:

There are 3 primary ferromagnetic materials: Iron, Nickel and Cobalt. In their pure state, none of these materials acts as a permanent magnet. They all lose their magnetism when the external magnetic field (H) is removed.

These materials all have magnetic domains, small crystalline regions which have a tendency to randomly align with each other. Without the presence of an external field, each domain will tend to align with neighboring domains in a direction of maximum entropy, so the fields will be least likely to propogate elsewhere. Something like:

--->
<---

The field from one domain is primarily drawn into the neighboring domain. In a pure ferromagnetic material, the domains will return to this state after the external field is removed.

However, there are some non-ferromagnetic materials that can be alloyed with the ferromagnetics which hinder domain rotation, things like Aluminum, Samarium, Boron, and/or Neodymium (or even the carbon and hydrogen in steel).

When these impurities are alloyed with the primary ferromagnetics, it makes life a lot more difficult for the domains, both during magnetization and demagnetization. It's harder to magnetize an NdFeB magnet than it is a steel magnet. It's also harder to demagnetize it.

When a permanent magnet is demagnetized, the magnetism isn't really lost. The domains have simply realigned with each other and much less magnetic field is available externally. The domains have realigned such that their fields are contained within the material of the magnet. The domains can be realigned if a powerful enough external magnetic field is applied again (remagnetization).

You can see the same sort of effect by taking an axially magnetized cylinder magnet and attaching a couple others to the sides, but facing the opposite direction. The field from the cylinder in the center will mostly be neutralized by the others. The domains get this from all sides, in full 3D.

s [====] n
n [====] s
s [====] n


If a strong enough external field is applied, the domains will realign and augment each other's fields (the impurities in permanent magnets resist this rotation):

s [====] n
s [====] n
s [====] n


Hope that makes sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:01 pm PostPost subject:
chrisbis
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 279

Reply with quote

overconfident,

Cheers, - interesting reading.

Any new thoughts on the Sjack Abeling GM?

I've seen the patent drawings and figured out whats what, so2speak.
_________________
underunity rules till proven overwise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:24 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

chrisbis wrote:
overconfident,
Any new thoughts on the Sjack Abeling GM?

I've seen the patent drawings and figured out whats what, so2speak


No new ideas, but a couple modifications to my original. I'd like to model it and try a couple changes. One of the guys on ou.com created a model of my original idea, but says the falling weights can't keep up with the rotation of the wheel at the speed required. He made the model in WM2D, but I can't justify $3,000.00 for the software, so I may never know if the concept might hold water.

Oh well ...

Seeing the patent was a letdown for me. I don't see anything in the patent that hasn't already been tried. I'm surprised they actually granted the patent. If Sjack doesn't have an ace up his sleeve, I don't think there's a prayer it will work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:37 pm PostPost subject:
chrisbis
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 279

Reply with quote

overconfident,

Mi sentiments entirely, looks too simplified to work, tho with all those frictional loses on the second surface so2speak, the system would seem not to be that much out of balance, (from a useful output formulation point of view).

What surprised me even more when i read thro the details and drawings, was that the whole system has only got 4 (four) weights/masses in its entirety.
When scaled up (which i presume he must be doing to get the sums of power output he mentioned in the website) it could be a very unstable beast of a thing for real!!
_________________
underunity rules till proven overwise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:17 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Chrisbis wrote:

I've seen the patent drawings and figured out whats what, so2speak.


I've been a bit busy and missed the link to the patent (or flat didn't visit the site where the link was posted)

Could you share it? Or at least post the application or patent number?

Thanx,

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:29 pm PostPost subject:
chrisbis
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 279

Reply with quote

Harvey,

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=get265

Thats the original patent, one of the OU guys has done an English (an American!)
digest of the description and drawings- its somewhere in there, dout u'll need it once u see the drawings.

Cheers
_________________
underunity rules till proven overwise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:12 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Thank you Chrisbis,

Yes, this looks very similar to my version I posted on OU months ago:

Click for Larger

I never did the math on the leverage forces involved, but it was easy to see that 5 rollers are in lift mode while 3 are providing the power. I had envisaged long rollers like those of a printing press suspended between two of these wheels.

What is interesting with his design is the deviation from a circular roller path. Short of mapping the force vectors along the path we can only assume that the conservative nature of gravity prohibits an altered path from doing anything interesting. Unless we're wrong about gravity being conservative... Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:12 am PostPost subject:
chrisbis
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 279

Reply with quote

Harvey,

Yes i saw ur drawing the other week over at OU.

What did u use as a drawing programme? -its very neat.
_________________
underunity rules till proven overwise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:05 pm PostPost subject:
chrisbis
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 279

Reply with quote

Harvey,

I really like your Gravity Wheel design, and as i said- the drawing is superb.

Just one issue that u can clear up for me in anaylising the fuctionality of the device.

U state (cautiously i feel) that the system has five rollers suppling the lift, and three giving the drive power, but the roller at say 270' (12.00 o'clock) and the roller directly opposite at 90' ( 6.oo o'clock) will have completely different operating speeds since they will be rolling on different surfaces.

Roller at 270' will undoubtedly roll on the inside stationary highly polished block,
and the roller at 90' will by the nature of centrifuge and gravity (at low speeds) be traversing on the second larger stationary highly polished block.
I think somethings gonna drag my friend, dependant on speed of rotation!!
_________________
underunity rules till proven overwise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:08 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Thank you for looking at the design as carefully as you have, I appreciate that. Actually what I meant to say is 5 rollers are being lifted (energy expense) while only 3 are dropping (energy gain) The polished surfaces are intended to minimize friction while drag is reduced via the precision sliders.

I chose a circular path for the rollers because I believe angular momentum would play an important part in splitting the field. The rollers would then accelerate and decelerate relative to each other, but the assembly would rotate with a constant momentum all following the same exact circular path. According to the laws of physics the device should be at perfect equilibrium. Like I said, I never approached it from a mathematical perspective.

Cool

ETA: The program is Microsoft Visio
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed May 06, 2009 2:55 pm PostPost subject:
Trim
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Colchester, Essex

Reply with quote

What I always find puzzling about these gravity wheels, is assuming that they actually work where does the energy come from? For instance if instead of a planet the G wheel was in a spaceship accelerating at one gee would it still work? And if it did would it slow the spaceship down? The same questions apply to a centrifuge?
_________________
Assume all assumptions are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed May 06, 2009 9:00 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Einstein demonstrated that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable from each other from an observers point of view. However, we cannot assume that they are both the same thing at the fundamental level.

We know from Newtonian physics that if a force is able to produce movement in an object that we can consider work has been done which also tells us energy has been expended, or literally, converted.

Gravity is such a force. It has the fundamental mechanism to accelerate any material at a given rate over time. Because it can move objects, then we know conclusively that Gravity can (and is ever second of every day) be converted to kinetic energy in the object that it moves. Ready for the other shoe to drop?

Clump. It is conservative. Therefore the energy it produces is entrapped in the field and the motion is produced at a price. There are two ways to view the potential energy of a gravitational body. 1. Closed system 2. Open System.
The closed system view essentially states, what goes up must come down. IOW, you can't create a gravitational potential out of nothing and must perform work first to obtain it. Fair enough, works great here on the planets surface. View 2 deals more realistically with the universe as whole propagates back to the point of creation. When the original energy was converted into matter it produced and instantaneous gravitational potential between that matter and all other matter, in all directions. I'm not going to go into atomic resonance here and how it relates to the 'weakness' of gravity, but I will say that the gravitational potential is universal.

This is an important point of view because it helps us to understand that when and where something becomes a reality plays a bit part in how the gravitational potential exists. If you were to take a bucket of light with you on the space shuttle trip and upon arriving at the station you created some matter from it as Lene Hau did at Harvard back in the '90's and continues to do today, then you would find that the shuttle would have a new gravitational potential to worry about as it brings the matter back to earth. Granted, it wouldn't be much to worry about and space dust alone would probably outweigh it, but its reality would still exist. Therefore, the when and where become important. The same is true of magnets.

When extracting energy from a gravitational field then, we must do one of two things. 1. Split the field into nonconservative components and operate on them independently 2. Convert matter to energy and vice versa at two separate locations. The rule we apply to #1 is that the net result is always zero if we end up back at the same point where we started regardless of the path we took to get there. It's like filling up a tank from the pond with a bucket while your buddy fills up the pond from the tank. It doesn't matter how many trips you make or what route you take as long as your two buckets always hold the same amount and your trips equal his trips. The net result is zero. The only time it is not zero is when you are crossing paths and your trips are not equal. And that, in gravitational terms would be where a nonconservative action occurs (see my pendulum video).

Historically, we have always envisaged that the buddy lifts his bucket out at excactly the same time you pour your bucket in so that the tank always has the same potential. But recent events indicate that this is not always the case.

With regards to your two questions regarding linear and angular acceleration, they are both forces that can be used to replace gravitation but I find it interesting that gravitation is an external inward spherical force while angular acceleration (centrifugal force) is an outward planar force. How this differences may impact a machine designed to derive energy from a nonconservative aspect of the fields produced would be an interesting study, but I think the machine would be constrained in the dimensions that it could operate apart from true gravity.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Magnetism Links and References
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum