Between 27 and 40 seconds you see 3 different flux representations of a Vizimag simulation depicting a HYMU-80 geometry and a ferromagnetic sphere and the anticipated flux interactions between the two.
Essentially we can expect acceleration of the sphere until it reaches the non reaction zone where all all flux interaction ceases - however, at this point the velocity is sufficient to allow the sphere to continue on unimpeded to subsequent stages of similar geometry.
@AdminOnDuty oh so this kind of causes the same effect as a real monopole would. how is the flux achieved? is it a property of this hymu-80? or is it an electromagnet?
The Y shaped part in the center is representative of three N42 (if I recall correctly) half circle magnets machined as shown (top view) but magnetized through the length - this provides the flux source. The HyMu-80 is a conical machined part with an inverse cone and straight interior cut for the magnets and a end plate washer which bonds the magnets to the cone magnetically. Because the magnets are half round the smaller sphere can pass over them.
each other, I suspect it will some how further bend , focus, or Acellerate the Flux or whirl poole magnetic forces in containment, being bent. So GO SLOW AND MONITOR YOUR PROGESS WITH A CAMMERA THAT CAN FILM MAGNETICC FIELDS AND HAVE A SPECTROMETER ON HAND!
I may be dislexic and not able to spell for Shit, but I don't want any one pissing it up and causing any time space or energy mass phase shifts on actsident.
Next ishue! I belive that such magnets of same pole,
mono pole principal say? A north and a north,
May be placed in opposet of each other the magnetic (void) in the center, and spun in a Rodin Coil, thus Self charging or multiplying the Field effect! But this is hypothisis only it may be that it will require three rodins one to power the magnetic spool, the other to too act as recivers on iether side.
I HAVE NOT TESTED HOW A MONO POLE MAGNET REACTS TO A SECOND OPPOSIT POLE MONO POLE MAGNET!
I do no't recomend bringing them mono poles of any nature in to contact with the opposing pole monopole magnet untill the propertys have been photographed and Documented the Magnometer used and some math done!
Once this has been done, you will have bent the one field to focus and roled the other field back on to it's self. thrue the harnessing and manipulation of the central core fields and thier oposition as worked against the outer containment ring. you will find the outer magnets posses a stron mono pole tendancy the center magnets a complet monopole Action.
Now continue this prosses around the diameter of the chip, in such fashion as that these magnets push away from eachother and the center by equal deg,
Now, Set the small 1/4 inch neodinium magnets around the out side of the center magnets, you will find that one way they wish to stick to the center magnet, the other are reppeled out from center magnet. You wish to place them in reppelled position at such distance that they are pushed in but not fighting the field so hard as to brake or bend the poker chip.
Ok two magnets round flat same size same strength. 1/2 inc outside diameter, one poker chip, 4 round section 1/4 inch neodiniume magnets, Useing a strong Non-metalic fixitive glue Iether north or south pole to the center of said plastic poker chip.
The circle thing is just a ferromagnetic ball being pulled into the field.
But when it is accelerated, it reaches its maximum velocity just as it reaches the split in the magnet. At that point, it's momentum carries it past the flux and it is no longer pulled back. This creates a psudo-monopolar action where the magnet seems to work like a monopole with respects to the ball, because it allows it to be pulled in but does not hold it there.
There is a major difference between something that is random and something that has an element of probability. Flipping a coin is random whereas something like Monopoly simply involves a random element. A better player will overcome the randomness due to a better strategy. It is true that mutations are random, but survival and mating strategies are not. Evolution did not randomly produce complex life any more than a horse giving birth to a lump of minerals.
Actually, Isaiah 40:26 says. "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." I believe that he's speaking of the different planets and stars.
I really appreciate your knowledge in the magnetics field, but it would be nice, if you are going to quote the Word of God, that you would use a more accurate translation.
I see you have quoted a version rather than a translation - common mistake to think a version is a translation ;-)
I have quoted an actual translation so the meaning behind the words as they relate modern english come through with their original impact as much as possible .
You are correct that it speaks of stars and planets. Where do you think the dynamic energy originates from to create such things? Before anything was created the energy was within Him alone.
When I was about 11 years old, back in 1960, my science teacher Mr. Greenberg did something like this for our class, calling it a close example of what a single pole magnet would be like. He used actual magnets and some metal bars. At that age I had no idea what he was talking about, nor did I care. So I believe this type of thing has been around for at least 50 years. Where you been, mate?
Nice try - but your teacher never did this - don't mistake this for a horseshoe magnet ;-) But I can see why you see a similarity.
This is made of HYMu - 80 which was no where to be found in 1960. Also, this is only a 2D slice of a 3D conical part with an embedded custom made N52 hemispherical cross section trapezoid cut magnet pair specially designed for flux routing to the end plate.
Since you've had 50 years to ponder it - do you understand the purpose of the device?
Electromagnetic is a beautiful field (haha field) to study, and its very clear on this topic.
Del * B = 0
You can delve more into how magnetic fields are produced if you wish, but suffice it to say that it isn't physically possible to produce a magnetic monopole.
Looking only at the monopolar magnetic field in this video, I would have to say no. It isn't monopolar. All that has been done is a redirection of one of the poles via a secondary and tertiary magnetic field. This is no more monopolar than a Halbach array is. North and South or, in this case, in and out, still exist. if this is considered monopolar, than what is a horseshoe magnet? It follows the same principle.
Looking only at the monopolar magnetic field in this video, i would have to say no. It isn't monopolar. All that has been done is a redirection of one of the poles via a secondary and tertiary magnetic field. This is no more monopolar than a halbach array is. North and South or, in this case, in and out, still exist. if this is considered monopolar, than what is a horseshoe magnet? It follows the same principle.
The device is designed to function as a type of magnetic funnel that draws the ferromagnetic sphere to it's center which has a pass through opening. Because the material has much more permeability than the sphere, nearly all of the flux removed from the sphere once it reaches the null zone. Because the sphere has been accelerated as it approaches the null zone (and the specification is designed to allow it to reach escape velocity) it continues on with little restriction.
A quasi system could be fabricated using several horseshoe magnets arranged in a circle like a bunt cake with like poles in the center and opposite poles on the outside. Then a Teflon tube could be used as a track and a ferromagnetic ball allowed to roll inside the tube. The magnetic field and ball inertial must be calculated such that the field shears as it passes the null zone. Once it is able to exit in this way, multiple systems can be placed in series.
So sitting on the north pole, the south pole would have an equal force on you? There are balances. And unbalances. That includes and effects the outcome of many things. All things should fall into place eventually. if it doesn't have the capability to function, it will cease, or not have purpose to anything around it. usually, I can't think of anything right now where this does not apply. [ put ice on the equater, out of it's place, right?
There are literally millions of gods. But there is only one True God as all others are false gods. It was the true God,YHWH (Jehovah in English) who gave the King of Babylon a dream which foretold the rise and fall of every world government from that king forward and had that recorded for us to read. The last of those governments, the UN, will seek to remove religion from all governments world wide. Then Jehovah will destroy the UN and all governments. Are these eight coincidences? It is written
The fairy 'tale' is that 80 years of life on this planet could have any real value at all. If it did, then I could easily argue that trees and turtles are more valuable than you.
Now, how exactly did we get brains that can hold thousands of years of experience if no one ever lives to be more than 256 years old? (search Li Ching-Yun. died 1933 New York Times Obituaries).
Simple answer: We were created to live longer - in fact, we were created to never die at all.
You honestly don't believe your brain evolved do you? He he he. Wow that's really funny. Evolution is a dead end street - one of the worst blunders science has ever embarked on. The deeper we look the worse it gets. If you had a little experience in math you would realize that. How many genes in the human genome? How many possible combinations? They have been there from the beginning - pre-programmed. How many acids needed for one protein? How many proteins for one cell?
How many genomic combinations work together to create useful metabolic reactions as compared to the number of possible genomic recombinants? That's why evolution explains our existence and our present state of being...if a combination fails is does not survive let alone thrive. You are full of evolutionary left overs...that's not a design...that is a work in progress.
Actually that is where you are showing your lack of understanding. Those are not left overs, those are future combinations waiting to be assembled. Pre-programmed from the beginning of creation. You are confusing variety with natural selection. There is a difference between filtering gene pools as is done with thoroughbreds and creating new things. All mutations known thus far are undesirable, nothing good comes from mutated genes. And it is a finite number, not evolution.
If you had "little experience in math" you may think this, but if you had a little more experience in mathematics you would know that this is how probability works.
The chances of YOU in particular winning the lottery are very small, but the chances of SOMEONE winning are actually quite high...and the chances of SOMEONE winning EVENTUALLY are certain.
The chances of the brain evolving are low, but the chances of it happening eventually are pretty darn high. Learn real maths.
LOL, you have shown how little you really know. The probability of a SINGLE protein molecule evolving is 1 in 10 ^ 113 (1 with 113 zeros after it) and that number is larger than the estimated total of all atoms in the universe. A single cell requires 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes for that cell to function.
The probability of all the right proteins to get in the right place to make a SINGLE cell is 1 in 10 ^ 40,000 (that's 1 with 40,000 zeros after it)
Any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
Now, let us say that you defy the odds, get 2,000 proteins to assemble as a SINGLE cell - just by some freak accident - congratulations you assembled a dead cell. Now, let us just suppose by some freaky collection of events you get all the cells needed for a brain. Now you have a dead brain. Do you have any idea how much blind faith it takes to believe in evolution? Astronomical.
Any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
Now, let us say that you defy the odds, get 2,000 proteins to assemble as a SINGLE cell - just by some freak accident - congratulations you assembled a dead cell. Now, let us just suppose by some freaky collection of events you get all the cells needed for a brain. Now you have a dead brain. Do you have any idea how much blind faith it takes to believe in evolution? Astronomical.
@ILoveSoImAlive Einstein did not believe in the type of god that you are talking about. He did not believe in a "personal" god that looks after us. He meant "god" as a keeper of the harmony that exists in the universe.
@ILoveSoImAlive Just because I don't know everything doesn't mean I don't know anything. I comment on what I see and the evidence to support it. Something that, I'm not so sure the religious can do.
@oscarnine2 sorry but in this case u comment not what u see, but what u read into that was u see.
and to think that u r superior to someone, is just same kind of blindness u blame religious people for.
many of them are self-righteous and think that nonreligious people are just stupid, otherwise they were religious. is it possible that u think the same way like the people do, wich, u think, are stupid?
@ILoveSoImAlive I never said religion was stupid. I don't believe in it but I'm not going to call it or its adherents stupid. All I know that the "spirit" has not touched me the same way it has you...and I doubt that it will.
@oscarnine2 the main thing wich prevents us from achieving our goals is not the environment, but our beliefs. a doubt is a belief without evidence. a doubt is a decision not to try.
@ILoveSoImAlive I can only know what I know and what is in front of me. I cannot wish upon a dream. That is not how I am built but for you I wish all the luck and happiness in the world.
@oscarnine2 personaly i dont count me to religious or to nonreligious. both r right if they say they r right, both r wrong if they say other one is wrong. we know that earlyer science and religion were the same. 2 perspectives at the same truth. search for truth. at one point one of them said that we should be able sometimes to look at things from just one perspective without relying on both. he was right.
@oscarnine2 there were some of them who tryed to search in just religious perspective and some in just scientific perspective. they were some conflicts and through mistakes on both sites religion and science become rivals. but thats not the problem of perspectives, but problem of interpretations. people who r not able to fit them together have to try it further or to reject one of them. to reject is easyer ;p. but at all times there were religious scientists. u can see me as one of them too.
Im sorry, what i wrote looks some aggressiv, but I didnt mean it like that. I just can not take seriously such naive, unprooved, untanable assertions. i think: it must be a joke, no one can be so ignorant. so I "joke back". :)
Here's a long story short. God created vessels (freewilled beings) to display His miraculous Wrath & beings to display His miraculous Mercy.. Question.. What side do you stand on??
HINT: Your on the mercy side, not by good works.. but by the blood of Christ..
I think it's interesting that Christianity based on "faith" has been attacked so severely. Notice the only two "Christian" Holidays Easter and CHRISTmas have replaced with fake fairy tales you believe when you're a kid, the "BOOM" your faith is undermined... Satan works in many simple ways to seperate man from God... My challenge to everyone here.. Read the book of John in the Bible. Jesus takes it from there. I can lead you to the water but I cannot make you drink.
DEC 25th was the day of celebration for Saturnalia and was thus adopted for a celebration of Jesus Birth (which was actually around the beginning of October )
Easter (Eostre, Ostera) is the Goddess of fertility and was celebrated in the spring when fertile crops were desired. The Rabbit (Hare) and the Egg are symbols of fertility.
Neither celebration is supported in the bible, especially birthdays. The only two celebrations recorded there involved death - I can take a hint., how about ;-)
I can present a fully functioning clock and callendar. Dose that count???
Just checkout how perfectly the earth and all the planets rotate around the sun and mid day to mid day always takes 24 hour. LOL You could call it a computer.
When a religouse person uses lodgic to explain their position on god or the spagetti monster we can have a proper conversation.
Sorry, but no it doesn't count. It does not qualify as having intelligence. Nor does it qualify as having come into existence by itself. When you look around your room at every tangible thing in existence, what logic do you use to convince yourself that the living objects were not designed?
You need to read richard dawkins -the greatest show on earth- or -the god delusion- Have you noticed how there are over 3000 religons in the world and if only one is right then there is a 3000 to 1 chance that you got the right one. If it were a horse race I wouldnt put much money on it.
Honestly, you are not in a qualified position to tell me what I need or do not need. Living force is not something to gamble with, it is a valuable thing and no scientist can produce it or transform it from some other energy. It is present in all living things. Perhaps it is you who needs more knowledge? Which is more logical, being trained by a person only 40 years older than you, or by a person who is billions older and created all living things? Your current path is a dead end street.
atheism is also a theology. It is a religon with no morals and no laws, where anything can be circumstantially jusified, without God there is nothing to base right and wrong upon. so that is your "3000 to 1" gamble. and which makes more sense, that life was designed by God. or that the amino acids lined up just right in the billions of combinations to make the DNA for a single, self-replicating cell. which ten proceeded to change and split and evolve into what we call man.
Sory atheism is not a theology because we dont beleive in god or Theo depending on your gods name. I beleive in the flighing spagetti monstor but he is a monstor not a god like yeawah the christian god. No one can prove the he dose not exist so he must be real. I have faith in the Spag Mon. and that is all you nead if you ask a christians. Im very frightened of you because you nead a 2 or 4 000 year old script to tell you not to kill, rape and pillage. Im just good and dont hurt people.
a theology is a belief on the nature of God, atheism is the belief that God is nonexistent. and full Christianity is not just blind faith, only an omnipotent being could create the universe. God is an omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent being. only an omniscient being could inspire the prophecies that are althroughout the old testament, and only an omnipresent being could be with all Christians at once,
An Omnipotent? Thats a new word. Ill add it to my vocabuary and might impress some christians. Are you saying that god is only with christians and not other medievil religons? It is so funny that christians love the old testament but it was exactly that that Jesus who was a non religouse jew told everyone to reject, and use some common sence when deciding morral dilemers. Old testament says stone a woman to death for adultery but jesus said May he who is with out sin cast the first stone.
Jesus based his ministry on the Old testament. teaching in the temple and telling people of the prophecies he fulfilled by his actions. He was hated by the high priests because he was taking their power. the priests were the "intercssors" for the people; when Jesus gave His life, he became the Intercessor. Jesus' birth was foretold in the old testament time and time again.
@AdminOnDuty If humans start life as a single cell that keeps splitting there is some evidance there that it is possible to make a complicated animal from a tiny cell. Now have you wondered why dfferent races all look different but have a common ancestor. Races of people or breads of dogs is short term evolution and it would only be a matter of time before different races could no longer interbread and same with dog breads.
Actually what deep scientific research has learned is that there is a finite combination of sequences in the DNA responsible for all of these variations. Therefore, all of the variety seen today was pre-programmed into the first cells. This is not evolution, it is procreation. It is also the reason that only a few key animals were needed on the Ark. Now, if you started to grow wings or gills, then I would say something had evolved. Evolution Theory is a dead end street.
I agree, 'Diode' in the strictest sense is not a very good name sense it is a contraction of two electrodes. This reference is linked to the actions involved rather than the name roots. Most persons familiar with electronics understand the one-way nature of the diode. This envisaged device contains the flux of one of the magnetic poles while allowing the other pole normal spatial distribution thus giving the device monopolar action which acts in one direction. Maybe it is an oxymoron ;-)
Why is it that almost every proponent of "free magnet energy" or "zero point energy" or the HHO
gas groupies, seem to have to put a religious spin on their "secret" technology? I guess it takes faith in a sky fairy to break the laws of physics. :)
I'm certain the reality of it is beyond your abiltiy to grasp. Let me know when you can demonstrate abiogenesis and then we can have an intellegent discussion.
When you can present to me a fully functional intellegent computer system that became existent without an engineer or any workers, then we can have an intellegent discussion.
Thankfully my belief is not in something false or imaginary, but someone real (John 7:28).
Scientifically speaking, the source of all energy cannot be explained. Nor can the source of all life. Scientifically, we cannot create anything living from inanimate matter - in all cases a living source must be used.
So, scientifically speaking - I have identified that source and 'He' is multidimensional and sentient. Pretending he's not there changes nothing.
Some may just look at the religion aspect as a form of INSPIRATION and such which guides or enlivens them to peacefully think of NEW SCIENCES to help society and such...
Thank you. Since many religions recognize the Holy Scriptures as authoritative, I felt the quotes to be apropos. If I had quoted a famous poet I suppose it would not have such a reaction. Is there a country with no religion? Makes one ponder the structure of humanity. This device offers a means to convert magnetic force into kinetic energy without adding energy to the system by effectively canceling the secondary dipole. I give the credit to the creator of magnetism.
Lol thats funny, I would think as a scientist one would accept the *possibility* for anything that they cant disprove regardless of how *improbable* they believe it to be. Atheists are such hypocrites. If Admin chooses to use his beliefs to inspire him, like obamanodraft said, then why the hell should you care? Afraid he may use his research in a mind control device? bwahahahahaha
i have noticed most Atheists i have had discussions with seem to immediately become agitated and have to voice out their extreme opposition to religious people, or anything having to do with the bible, they bash it, knock it, criticize it, say believers are deluded , stupid, weak minded, brainwashed..ect ect...
I would love to conduct a survey, i would like to know the names of every scientist who contributed a major breakthrough and see how many of them were/are religious...im very curious...
It certainly would be an interesting study. Ironically, the Holy Scriptures indicate that such a study will be made and that it will result in a global attack on religion by a single united organization of nations. When you hear a united group of nations declaring 'Peace and Security', then you will know that the power of religion is being stripped from mankind and placed into the hands of government. The prophecy continues to say that a single kingdom will crush all the others. Daniel 2:44
Oh RamoneTalarico It would be interesting to see if there were any scientists that were true religouse people. It was usualy the narrow minded religouse nuts who dominated the world that were persacuting any scientist that proved church held beleifs on science wronge.Galilio Davinci Socr. you name them. The sooner religouse nuts keap their fair tails to them selves the better the world will be. Do you believe in Santa as well? You would be a muslim if the Battle of Vianna was lost Learn history
@Ultimist You fail as a scientific mind if you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of something you can't explain. You are what is known as ignorant.
@Ultimist Athiesm believes in a universe and life that was produced without any need for a designer. Being an atheist you have to hold that fundamental belief. science so far does not back you up, even though pop science does. Where is your evidence for this conviction?
@Ultimist Yes it does. It requires you don't believe in a greater power, being or purpose. The closest thing to no belief would be Agnosticism, a belief that nothing is certain. Do your research.
Atheism is no different than any other religion on earth, and has no real scientific backing to its existence.
@lithium3fun Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Atheism doesn't say "there is no god" - it only says there is no proof for one. Extreme atheists claim there is no god, but I'm not an extreme atheist. No evidence has ever been shown to PROVE that god exists.
Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
agnosticism:
a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence".
There sure hasn't been any evidence to disprove it. Do this for me: Justify love in the context of evolution. There's no way to. It shouldn't exist in a "survival of the fittest" world.
@Ultimist You know, the only reason Atheism is so prevalent these days is because people are being brainwashed into it, religion or no religion. I don't need evidence to prove God exists; common sense and sound logic do that for me.
During a single photon cycle its given frequency the magnetic field and electric field expand and contract. When the fields cross zero the polarity inverts. Because of this, placing the photon in a static field has no net effect because the inversion cancels out. However, if the control field is pulsed in phase for a given polarity, the photon will either bend toward or away from the field proportional to the phase angle. In phase means syncronized and will produce the greatest observable effect
My current projects do not involve visible light. Berkley just released their work in the microwave range (search Berkley Cloak). Most persons do not realize why certain materials have a refraction index. Search 'left handed materials' for examples of materials that have a negative refraction, negative permiability, negative permissivity. The knowledge gained will help build a better foundation for understanding photon atom interaction. Imagine the photon as phasing between energy and matter.
-neutrons stick to other particles in the nucleus because they are pinched in by protons and neutrons, nuclear forces are also present. You can liken this to the casimir effect, however as shown in test done in las alamos, the plates that they tested were not charged.
photons = imaginary particles Einstein made up to better explain light's properties (a symbol for energy kinda like the notes on sheet music). He never meant for them to be taken as real; no mass, no charge ever
Huh? Your ABCD points are only tangentially related to mine in response to someone else :P Check point D, however. The vacuum "Zero Point Energy" is, by classical definition, the residual energy in a vacuum produced by quantum fluctuations of virtual particle pair production. It's the so-called "Casimir Effect" and the energy is real, comes from all the fields that pass through that volume of space, gravitational, electrical, magnetic and etc. and may not actually be useful. Time will tell.
The term 'zero point' refers to zero kelvin the theoretical temperature at which all atomic activity should cease. When this temperature was nearly reached using magnetocaloric materials it was found that too much energy still subsisted. This energy is called 'Zero Point Energy'. Some have speculated that the Casimir Effect may be tapping into this energy but I can assure you this is not the case. Casimir energy is related more to the Dirac Sea than Zero Point.
What a "magnetic diode" would allow you to do, from the illustration, is move particles that can be magnetically deflected in a single direction and not have them be drawn around the loop. This is actually closer to a mechanical one way valve than a diode, but that's the basics. Has nothing to do with a true magnetic monopole, a now abandoned concept from particle physics, and more to do with the techniques used in Magnetic Bubble Memory by Intel years ago.
The term diode simply means two active terminals. Early diodes were vacuum tubes and typically exibited rectifying qualities. The magnetic diode is similar in that it has and entrance and exit, thus two 'terminals'. It is monopolar in function, not in weiss domain configuration. To date, the only monopole ever observed was produced by the Hutchison Effect and those domains are thought to resemble metal geodes with the inner surface one pole and the outer surface the other - so not monopolar.
A) There are no "particles", just "probability locii". B) All perceived particles are fields that extend to the edge of the universe and are linked at that edge (this obviates "cosmic inflation", "dark matter" *and* "dark energy", btw). C) Magnetic fields are formed by twisting the fields of electrons and resemble the twist in a sheet of rubber, thus the apparent loop (the twist is 3D, btw). D) Zero Point energy is drawn from quantum fluctuations in all the fields of all particles in existance.
A) E=MC² Thus all particles are actually energy in transition. It is the chain reaction of particles that enabled the atomic bomb to work. B) A field is a volume where force has influence C) Magnetic fields are distortions in space-time that electrons recursively align themselves with. In 3space it has a toroidal appearance. D) Zero point energy is a nuclean resonance between the nucleus of the atom and space-time - it can only be squelched by nucleonic decay - i.e. radioactivity.
in the show box select 'all comments', then at the bottom of the screen click the link to see the entire list. This will order the list chronologically starting with the oldest.
Please repost them. I will delete anything offtopic or abusive but as of yet I have not deleted anything in this thread. I did answer 2 of your questions and they are still here.
This is a monopolor magnetetic device. The secondary pole is sufficiently shunted so as to have little or no effect on the moving object. Consequently, the primary pole is free to exert force on the object without trapping it. Any acceleration and resulting momentum is not degraded by the secondary pole. The object freely escape via a neutral zone. The Bible Verses are there to remind us where the energy source is and who deserves the credit for its existance.
Scientists have known for over 120 years that magnetic force can be used to provide work. However we have always been plagued with the duality of the dipole. What goes in, must come out and thus the energy always nets to zero. This device reroutes the opposing force to prevent its negative effects and thus the positve force is free to provide work unhampered.
The opposite pole isn't what maintains the amount of energy to give no net change though - it's the energy changing from one form to another. Why isn't this just potential to kinetic?
There is an internal and external pathway for the flux. The orientation of the each dipole internally creates Weiss Domains that ultimately results in reaching the surface of the material. Externally the flux path follows curved space back to the opposite pole. Certain materials provide a better path. When these paths are shunted the field size is shrunk significantly to follow the shunt material. I refer to this a field shaping.
Becuase the non-shunted field is non linear (following the inverse cube rule) an object being acted on will be attracted to the source. However, because this creates momentum the object will always overshoot the source. If the object enters a field whose invers cube vector is opposite to its momentum vector the object will slow to a stop and be drawn back to the source. By preventing the object from entering this field it is free to continue without obstruction.
So kinetic energy is produced where it wasn't present before, and is not reduced because there is no force (or there's a negligibly small force) to act against it? In the same way probes like 'Voyager' got a "gravitational slingshot"? (just with gravity instead of magnetism)
What's the inverse cube rule by the way? Is it in the same vein as the inverse square rule?
That is one way to put it. In reality, all mass has spatial pressure around each particle of matter it contains. This pressure is additive and we recognize it as curved space. These two (The magnet and the object) have a special interaction as space tries to equalize itself. We see this interaction as magnetic attraction or repulsion. A similiar reaction occurs as gravity for different reasons.
A magnetic field cannot interact with space and time. If it could, strong magnetic fields could bend light (as a result of distorting space-time like gravity). Unfortunately, magnetic fields cannot bend light, meaning that magnetic attraction and repulsion are not the result of any special interaction having to do with space equalizing itself.
Actually you are incorrect in your assumption. Cyclotrons use magnetic fields to bend light (an other) particles into a circular path. CRT monitors, televisions and oscilloscopes are examples of magnetically bending the path that electron beams follow. Electron beams exibit the same wave / particle duality as photons. The Auroa Borealis is an example of magnetically altering the path of photonic energy from the Sun. Light is electromagnetic. There are videos here of light being bent by magnetism
Yes, cyclotrons can bend other particles, but only charged particles like protons, electrons and ions. Cyclotrons cannot bend particles without charge like the neutron. Put a neutron in a magnetic field and it won't run. Similarly, light photons do not have charge, so whether in wave or "particle" form, they are not affected by magnetic fields.
Along the same idea, the aurora borealis is the result of collisions of *charged particles* with the upper atmosphere, not with photons. Any non-charged particle cannot cause the auroa
Main idea: Just because electron beams act like photons of light, they are inherently and forever different no matter how hard you try to reason. Photons according to Einstein is a packet of energy: a really really broad definition. Thus, it is often confused with particles (since they have energy too).
Thank you for your perspective. I can see you are still learning and thats good. I too thought as you do long ago. But as you gain more knowledge you will learn that all light is electromagnetic radiation. This means that at some point it its cycle it will have an electric field and magnetic field as well. The photoelectric effect is very dependant on this aspect. Pay special attention to why the qty is less important than the frequency. If you imagine a pulsed field in sync you will understand.
You can rely on the theories and experiences of others before you but you run the risk of not having the complete picture. Newton was unaware that his theories failed the orbit of Mercury. Likewise Eienstein was unaware that his theories and experiments would omit entanglement. And today, while attempts are made to detect gravity waves and quantify Einstein & Sterns 'Nullpunktenergie' aka zero point energy, main stream scientist fall short in their goals and are often surprised by their results.
Much of your knowledge will come from your own thought experients. Ascertain for yourself why the transition from one state of matter to another is not smooth. Or why electrons have orbital shells. Or why gravity fields are spherical and magnetic fields are pinched at the poles. Or why heat cannot traverse a vacuum but infra red can. Or why some electrons weigh more than others. Or why neutrons stick to protons. Never lose sight of your living examples around you and the clues God has provided.
And don't make things complicated beyond necessity. When ever possible, Keep It Super Simple (KISS principle). You may want to begin by researching Halbach Wiggler Electron Lasers.
actually I have researched them a while ago, they're pretty cool, but require parts of the setup to be submerged in liquid nitrogen (I don't like the idea of a super heavy, super expensive laser)
Though I do treat it as more of a learning tool yea. The process shows that the photons are packets of energy. That photons = light, that magnetism can be used to push charged particles.
for my wave/particle problems I think of it this way:light as waves and light as particles is just 2 ways of lookin
right, I already know that, which is why I do my own experiments to verify validity of theories, as well as theoretical stuff. However, it's an absolute fact that photons have no charge and that magnetism cannot bend light. The inability of light to be bent via magnetism can be shown in any environment. Though I agree that theories should not be adhered to strictly, the tests are made in nature, away from any theory. Light will not bend not because of a theory, but by the almighty law of nature
Light can be bent by magnetic fields (and is all the time) but the field must alternate and be syncronized. Likewise it can be bent by an electric field the same way. Radio 'waves' are sub-visible light. We move them around electromagnetically. We bend them and shape them with other fields and sometimes cavities. Each frequency has its very own characteristics and response curves. The wiggler demonstrates energy leaving and electron. Critical for understanding the true nature of photonic energy
Our object here still loses potential energy as it approaches the magnet though doesn't it? Just as Voyager lost gravitational potential energy as it approached its slingshot planets?
I can't find any mention of an inverse cube rule in any of my textbooks or online. How could the field strength decrease in that manner unless there were four dimensions of space (and gravity then behave likewise)?
I haven't read this, it was the first google hit. It starts with three doubleu's and the numeral 3 [dot]sympatico[dot]ca/claudette[dot]berube/On_the_Inverse_Cube_Magnetostatic_Interaction[dot]pdf
I wouldn't bother reading it. The presentation of the results isn't worthy of a high school student, he doesn't show any of the replicates he claims to have done and there's no statistical analysis for the reliability of the results (not even sd!).
If you do read it you'll see what I mean and then some.
I read through it later. He did 10 readings per weight and charted the mean. His tests don't seem to factor quite a few things such as surface tension of the water, friction on the cord and center rod etc. But it is interesting that his test does show the inverse cube law to be present. Search Google for Inverse Cube Magnetism and I'm sure you'll find supporting documentation.
In this device, once the object reaches the highest flux density location PE will drop to zero. However, the point of lowest density is not the highest PE. The highest PE is at the point where magnetic strength can perform the greatest quantity of work. In other words there is a sweet spot for maximum PE. Unlike the Voyager slingshot this device will not pullback on the object. (unless of course you had a track that routed the object back through the non-shunted field in the opposite direction)
How can you be sure that more KE is produced than PE lost?
When the object leaves the magnetic field, it is at constant velocity and isn't accelerating, so its KE isn't increasing from that point onwards. It has no potential energy as it can't be pulled back, but it has
To find the sweet spot you would need to graph the Force for each distance point and calculate the work it can perform on the mass. There is a point at which the object will travel the entire distance to the center without any further force. This would be your maximum PE point. Any closer and you lose available distance to perform work and any farther and it wont reach the center.
The force does not emminate from the center but rather is pushed from space outside. This means if we change the shape of the field we can alter the force vector. (all CRT's use this feature of magnetism to move the electron gun).
In a closed system dealing with only a magnetic field and an object you will always have a loss. However, the PE is regenerative because the field never collapses. If the momentum is sufficient to circle the object back around for another pass the PE will be present. In open systems other energy can be added that may result in KE > PE. Examples are Ion wind, convective vaccums and charged particle absorption.
I think I get this now. PE is converted into KE, and the object can be circled round for another pass - with an energy input to change its velocity of course.
Apart from the neat technology like ion thrusters and the stuff you just mentioned that we can get from this idea, what's so revolutionary about this?
To make the object move in the manner shown in the video, yes. To circle the object round for another pass though, energy would be required to change the velocity - since as you mentioned the magnet does not pull it back.
Hypothetically if we used a N45 magnet and a 15g highly polished chromium steel ball, what would the accelertion be by the time it reached the center? After passing the center what would it's momentum be? Lets assume its riding on a circular sapphire track at sea level inside a faraday cage. What would the maximum circumference be for it to return to its starting point and retain 10% of its momentum? If this is possible what does it mean?
How far away is the ball from the magnet initially? What proportion of the ball's mass is attracted to the magnet? Which point on the image shown in the video are we calling the center? What is the PE at this center?
Lets set the initial location at PEmax with the entire sphere affected. Lets call the center the point at which the lower magnet splits into the two upper magnets making a 'Y' configuration. Once the trailing edge of the sphere passes this point the force should net to zero (PE0)in all directions and acceleration stops. Wikipedia Magnet for equations.
'gun' should read beam. The gun is actually a hardware piece that emits electrons whereas the beam is a stream of electrons accelerating toward the anode.
MEANWHILE, in reality.
Darthreloy 3 months ago
what exactly is the visual between 27 and 40 seconds of?
kenny8331 3 months ago
@kenny8331 ,
Between 27 and 40 seconds you see 3 different flux representations of a Vizimag simulation depicting a HYMU-80 geometry and a ferromagnetic sphere and the anticipated flux interactions between the two.
Essentially we can expect acceleration of the sphere until it reaches the non reaction zone where all all flux interaction ceases - however, at this point the velocity is sufficient to allow the sphere to continue on unimpeded to subsequent stages of similar geometry.
Cheers.
AdminOnDuty 2 months ago
@AdminOnDuty oh so this kind of causes the same effect as a real monopole would. how is the flux achieved? is it a property of this hymu-80? or is it an electromagnet?
kenny8331 2 months ago
@kenny8331,
Sorry for the delayed response -
The Y shaped part in the center is representative of three N42 (if I recall correctly) half circle magnets machined as shown (top view) but magnetized through the length - this provides the flux source. The HyMu-80 is a conical machined part with an inverse cone and straight interior cut for the magnets and a end plate washer which bonds the magnets to the cone magnetically. Because the magnets are half round the smaller sphere can pass over them.
AdminOnDuty 2 months ago
And keep in mind this was a basic Exeriment,
I have no Idea what happens if you use more
of the small magnets and force them nearer
each other, I suspect it will some how further bend , focus, or Acellerate the Flux or whirl poole magnetic forces in containment, being bent. So GO SLOW AND MONITOR YOUR PROGESS WITH A CAMMERA THAT CAN FILM MAGNETICC FIELDS AND HAVE A SPECTROMETER ON HAND!
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
I may be dislexic and not able to spell for Shit, but I don't want any one pissing it up and causing any time space or energy mass phase shifts on actsident.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
So for God's sake go slow, and test thurrowly.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Next ishue! I belive that such magnets of same pole,
mono pole principal say? A north and a north,
May be placed in opposet of each other the magnetic (void) in the center, and spun in a Rodin Coil, thus Self charging or multiplying the Field effect! But this is hypothisis only it may be that it will require three rodins one to power the magnetic spool, the other to too act as recivers on iether side.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Secondly!!!
And of great importance!
I HAVE NOT TESTED HOW A MONO POLE MAGNET REACTS TO A SECOND OPPOSIT POLE MONO POLE MAGNET!
I do no't recomend bringing them mono poles of any nature in to contact with the opposing pole monopole magnet untill the propertys have been photographed and Documented the Magnometer used and some math done!
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Be safe with this will you?
I haven't the lab gear to properly check for gama radiation.
And found such field manipulation to have strange reactions around other magnetic and electrical fields.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Once this has been done, you will have bent the one field to focus and roled the other field back on to it's self. thrue the harnessing and manipulation of the central core fields and thier oposition as worked against the outer containment ring. you will find the outer magnets posses a stron mono pole tendancy the center magnets a complet monopole Action.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Step 4
Now continue this prosses around the diameter of the chip, in such fashion as that these magnets push away from eachother and the center by equal deg,
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Step 3
Now, Set the small 1/4 inch neodinium magnets around the out side of the center magnets, you will find that one way they wish to stick to the center magnet, the other are reppeled out from center magnet. You wish to place them in reppelled position at such distance that they are pushed in but not fighting the field so hard as to brake or bend the poker chip.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Step 2
Now once fixitve is dry? Glue second large round magnet in Reppeling force against the other side of plastic poker chip. Held using a Clamp or vice.
( this begins the prosses of bending the fields )
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
Step 1
Ok two magnets round flat same size same strength. 1/2 inc outside diameter, one poker chip, 4 round section 1/4 inch neodiniume magnets, Useing a strong Non-metalic fixitive glue Iether north or south pole to the center of said plastic poker chip.
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
I've made them before. it's realy not so hard to do.
But If I go and share such thing What will a bunch of monkeys do with it ?
won't they just fight over it rather than share it?
FireDropTechnologies 4 months ago
I'm sorry, but those bible versus were completely wrong. People like this make all spiritualists look like idiots.
bnewton81 4 months ago
I hate to sound like a hardcore skeptic, but if this is a monopole, shouldn't the field lines be irrotational like a monopole?
ElectricGravity 5 months ago 2
@ElectricGravity Oh, nevermind. That circle thing is supposed to be the monopole. -.-
ElectricGravity 5 months ago
@ElectricGravity ,
The circle thing is just a ferromagnetic ball being pulled into the field.
But when it is accelerated, it reaches its maximum velocity just as it reaches the split in the magnet. At that point, it's momentum carries it past the flux and it is no longer pulled back. This creates a psudo-monopolar action where the magnet seems to work like a monopole with respects to the ball, because it allows it to be pulled in but does not hold it there.
Hope that clears it up.
;-)
AdminOnDuty 5 months ago
There is a major difference between something that is random and something that has an element of probability. Flipping a coin is random whereas something like Monopoly simply involves a random element. A better player will overcome the randomness due to a better strategy. It is true that mutations are random, but survival and mating strategies are not. Evolution did not randomly produce complex life any more than a horse giving birth to a lump of minerals.
subsystems 7 months ago
Even if magnetic monopoles exist (no evidence so far), you would need energy to push it into the magnetic field.
PCSoftware 7 months ago
Actually, Isaiah 40:26 says. "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." I believe that he's speaking of the different planets and stars.
I really appreciate your knowledge in the magnetics field, but it would be nice, if you are going to quote the Word of God, that you would use a more accurate translation.
1ShoeHorn 7 months ago
@1ShoeHorn ,
I see you have quoted a version rather than a translation - common mistake to think a version is a translation ;-)
I have quoted an actual translation so the meaning behind the words as they relate modern english come through with their original impact as much as possible .
You are correct that it speaks of stars and planets. Where do you think the dynamic energy originates from to create such things? Before anything was created the energy was within Him alone.
Cheers =)
AdminOnDuty 7 months ago
When I was about 11 years old, back in 1960, my science teacher Mr. Greenberg did something like this for our class, calling it a close example of what a single pole magnet would be like. He used actual magnets and some metal bars. At that age I had no idea what he was talking about, nor did I care. So I believe this type of thing has been around for at least 50 years. Where you been, mate?
russiancrew5000 8 months ago
@russiancrew5000 ,
Nice try - but your teacher never did this - don't mistake this for a horseshoe magnet ;-) But I can see why you see a similarity.
This is made of HYMu - 80 which was no where to be found in 1960. Also, this is only a 2D slice of a 3D conical part with an embedded custom made N52 hemispherical cross section trapezoid cut magnet pair specially designed for flux routing to the end plate.
Since you've had 50 years to ponder it - do you understand the purpose of the device?
AdminOnDuty 8 months ago
God created science. :)
solarsynapse 9 months ago
Electromagnetic is a beautiful field (haha field) to study, and its very clear on this topic.
Del * B = 0
You can delve more into how magnetic fields are produced if you wish, but suffice it to say that it isn't physically possible to produce a magnetic monopole.
emailandWhatfor 10 months ago
Looking only at the monopolar magnetic field in this video, I would have to say no. It isn't monopolar. All that has been done is a redirection of one of the poles via a secondary and tertiary magnetic field. This is no more monopolar than a Halbach array is. North and South or, in this case, in and out, still exist. if this is considered monopolar, than what is a horseshoe magnet? It follows the same principle.
aceflier2009 1 year ago
Looking only at the monopolar magnetic field in this video, i would have to say no. It isn't monopolar. All that has been done is a redirection of one of the poles via a secondary and tertiary magnetic field. This is no more monopolar than a halbach array is. North and South or, in this case, in and out, still exist. if this is considered monopolar, than what is a horseshoe magnet? It follows the same principle.
aceflier2009 1 year ago
@aceflier2009 ,
The device is designed to function as a type of magnetic funnel that draws the ferromagnetic sphere to it's center which has a pass through opening. Because the material has much more permeability than the sphere, nearly all of the flux removed from the sphere once it reaches the null zone. Because the sphere has been accelerated as it approaches the null zone (and the specification is designed to allow it to reach escape velocity) it continues on with little restriction.
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
@aceflier2009
A quasi system could be fabricated using several horseshoe magnets arranged in a circle like a bunt cake with like poles in the center and opposite poles on the outside. Then a Teflon tube could be used as a track and a ferromagnetic ball allowed to roll inside the tube. The magnetic field and ball inertial must be calculated such that the field shears as it passes the null zone. Once it is able to exit in this way, multiple systems can be placed in series.
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
Stop asking redundant questions and show the god damn video.
llamapi3 1 year ago
So sitting on the north pole, the south pole would have an equal force on you? There are balances. And unbalances. That includes and effects the outcome of many things. All things should fall into place eventually. if it doesn't have the capability to function, it will cease, or not have purpose to anything around it. usually, I can't think of anything right now where this does not apply. [ put ice on the equater, out of it's place, right?
broodyart 1 year ago
our governments knows this,but wont make it happen,not enough revinue to be had by the basterds..
watballs2020 1 year ago
There is no god, and it is nonsense to think that, end of story.
rathat48 1 year ago
There are literally millions of gods. But there is only one True God as all others are false gods. It was the true God,YHWH (Jehovah in English) who gave the King of Babylon a dream which foretold the rise and fall of every world government from that king forward and had that recorded for us to read. The last of those governments, the UN, will seek to remove religion from all governments world wide. Then Jehovah will destroy the UN and all governments. Are these eight coincidences? It is written
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
Stop with the fairy tails, we
rathat48 1 year ago
The fairy 'tale' is that 80 years of life on this planet could have any real value at all. If it did, then I could easily argue that trees and turtles are more valuable than you.
Now, how exactly did we get brains that can hold thousands of years of experience if no one ever lives to be more than 256 years old? (search Li Ching-Yun. died 1933 New York Times Obituaries).
Simple answer: We were created to live longer - in fact, we were created to never die at all.
What is your reality?
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
We evolved, learn science.
rathat48 1 year ago
ROFL - HAHAHAHA - Whew!
You honestly don't believe your brain evolved do you? He he he. Wow that's really funny. Evolution is a dead end street - one of the worst blunders science has ever embarked on. The deeper we look the worse it gets. If you had a little experience in math you would realize that. How many genes in the human genome? How many possible combinations? They have been there from the beginning - pre-programmed. How many acids needed for one protein? How many proteins for one cell?
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
How many genomic combinations work together to create useful metabolic reactions as compared to the number of possible genomic recombinants? That's why evolution explains our existence and our present state of being...if a combination fails is does not survive let alone thrive. You are full of evolutionary left overs...that's not a design...that is a work in progress.
GenevaSuspension 1 year ago
@GenevaSuspension
Actually that is where you are showing your lack of understanding. Those are not left overs, those are future combinations waiting to be assembled. Pre-programmed from the beginning of creation. You are confusing variety with natural selection. There is a difference between filtering gene pools as is done with thoroughbreds and creating new things. All mutations known thus far are undesirable, nothing good comes from mutated genes. And it is a finite number, not evolution.
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
@AdminOnDuty No.
If you had "little experience in math" you may think this, but if you had a little more experience in mathematics you would know that this is how probability works.
The chances of YOU in particular winning the lottery are very small, but the chances of SOMEONE winning are actually quite high...and the chances of SOMEONE winning EVENTUALLY are certain.
The chances of the brain evolving are low, but the chances of it happening eventually are pretty darn high. Learn real maths.
moltencheese123 1 year ago
@moltencheese123 ,
LOL, you have shown how little you really know. The probability of a SINGLE protein molecule evolving is 1 in 10 ^ 113 (1 with 113 zeros after it) and that number is larger than the estimated total of all atoms in the universe. A single cell requires 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes for that cell to function.
The probability of all the right proteins to get in the right place to make a SINGLE cell is 1 in 10 ^ 40,000 (that's 1 with 40,000 zeros after it)
Cont . . .
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
. . . Continued
Any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
Now, let us say that you defy the odds, get 2,000 proteins to assemble as a SINGLE cell - just by some freak accident - congratulations you assembled a dead cell. Now, let us just suppose by some freaky collection of events you get all the cells needed for a brain. Now you have a dead brain. Do you have any idea how much blind faith it takes to believe in evolution? Astronomical.
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
. . . Continued
Any event that has one chance in just 10^50 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
Now, let us say that you defy the odds, get 2,000 proteins to assemble as a SINGLE cell - just by some freak accident - congratulations you assembled a dead cell. Now, let us just suppose by some freaky collection of events you get all the cells needed for a brain. Now you have a dead brain. Do you have any idea how much blind faith it takes to believe in evolution? Astronomical.
AdminOnDuty 1 year ago
einstein said there must be god, but you are much more clever then he was.
how naiv :)
if you close your eyes, the world does not disappeare. you just cant see anything, you know?
how can you know there is no god? did you looked under your bed?
perhaps he can run just as fast as you can turn, so every time you turn he runs behind you?
ILoveSoImAlive 1 year ago
@ILoveSoImAlive Einstein did not believe in the type of god that you are talking about. He did not believe in a "personal" god that looks after us. He meant "god" as a keeper of the harmony that exists in the universe.
oscarnine2 1 year ago
@oscarnine2 r u sure that u know what type of god i am talking about? i dont think u should be sure because u cant know. ;)
ILoveSoImAlive 1 year ago
@ILoveSoImAlive Just because I don't know everything doesn't mean I don't know anything. I comment on what I see and the evidence to support it. Something that, I'm not so sure the religious can do.
oscarnine2 1 year ago
@oscarnine2 sorry but in this case u comment not what u see, but what u read into that was u see.
and to think that u r superior to someone, is just same kind of blindness u blame religious people for.
many of them are self-righteous and think that nonreligious people are just stupid, otherwise they were religious. is it possible that u think the same way like the people do, wich, u think, are stupid?
ILoveSoImAlive 1 year ago
@ILoveSoImAlive I never said religion was stupid. I don't believe in it but I'm not going to call it or its adherents stupid. All I know that the "spirit" has not touched me the same way it has you...and I doubt that it will.
oscarnine2 1 year ago
@oscarnine2 the main thing wich prevents us from achieving our goals is not the environment, but our beliefs. a doubt is a belief without evidence. a doubt is a decision not to try.
put ur mind out of ur way. peace.
ILoveSoImAlive 1 year ago
@ILoveSoImAlive I can only know what I know and what is in front of me. I cannot wish upon a dream. That is not how I am built but for you I wish all the luck and happiness in the world.
oscarnine2 1 year ago
@oscarnine2 personaly i dont count me to religious or to nonreligious. both r right if they say they r right, both r wrong if they say other one is wrong. we know that earlyer science and religion were the same. 2 perspectives at the same truth. search for truth. at one point one of them said that we should be able sometimes to look at things from just one perspective without relying on both. he was right.
ILoveSoImAlive 1 year ago
@oscarnine2 there were some of them who tryed to search in just religious perspective and some in just scientific perspective. they were some conflicts and through mistakes on both sites religion and science become rivals. but thats not the problem of perspectives, but problem of interpretations. people who r not able to fit them together have to try it further or to reject one of them. to reject is easyer ;p. but at all times there were religious scientists. u can see me as one of them too.
ILoveSoImAlive 1 year ago
Im sorry, what i wrote looks some aggressiv, but I didnt mean it like that. I just can not take seriously such naive, unprooved, untanable assertions. i think: it must be a joke, no one can be so ignorant. so I "joke back". :)
ILoveSoImAlive 1 year ago
Here's a long story short. God created vessels (freewilled beings) to display His miraculous Wrath & beings to display His miraculous Mercy.. Question.. What side do you stand on??
HINT: Your on the mercy side, not by good works.. but by the blood of Christ..
energy4usall 2 years ago
I think it's interesting that Christianity based on "faith" has been attacked so severely. Notice the only two "Christian" Holidays Easter and CHRISTmas have replaced with fake fairy tales you believe when you're a kid, the "BOOM" your faith is undermined... Satan works in many simple ways to seperate man from God... My challenge to everyone here.. Read the book of John in the Bible. Jesus takes it from there. I can lead you to the water but I cannot make you drink.
gmcgrew1 2 years ago
DEC 25th was the day of celebration for Saturnalia and was thus adopted for a celebration of Jesus Birth (which was actually around the beginning of October )
Easter (Eostre, Ostera) is the Goddess of fertility and was celebrated in the spring when fertile crops were desired. The Rabbit (Hare) and the Egg are symbols of fertility.
Neither celebration is supported in the bible, especially birthdays. The only two celebrations recorded there involved death - I can take a hint., how about ;-)
AdminOnDuty 2 years ago
Youre welcome. Any other questions just drop me a line and Ill answer them.
Savehumanrights 2 years ago
I can present a fully functioning clock and callendar. Dose that count???
Just checkout how perfectly the earth and all the planets rotate around the sun and mid day to mid day always takes 24 hour. LOL You could call it a computer.
When a religouse person uses lodgic to explain their position on god or the spagetti monster we can have a proper conversation.
Savehumanrights 2 years ago
SaveHumanRights:
Sorry, but no it doesn't count. It does not qualify as having intelligence. Nor does it qualify as having come into existence by itself. When you look around your room at every tangible thing in existence, what logic do you use to convince yourself that the living objects were not designed?
AdminOnDuty 2 years ago
You need to read richard dawkins -the greatest show on earth- or -the god delusion- Have you noticed how there are over 3000 religons in the world and if only one is right then there is a 3000 to 1 chance that you got the right one. If it were a horse race I wouldnt put much money on it.
Savehumanrights 2 years ago
Honestly, you are not in a qualified position to tell me what I need or do not need. Living force is not something to gamble with, it is a valuable thing and no scientist can produce it or transform it from some other energy. It is present in all living things. Perhaps it is you who needs more knowledge? Which is more logical, being trained by a person only 40 years older than you, or by a person who is billions older and created all living things? Your current path is a dead end street.
AdminOnDuty 2 years ago
atheism is also a theology. It is a religon with no morals and no laws, where anything can be circumstantially jusified, without God there is nothing to base right and wrong upon. so that is your "3000 to 1" gamble. and which makes more sense, that life was designed by God. or that the amino acids lined up just right in the billions of combinations to make the DNA for a single, self-replicating cell. which ten proceeded to change and split and evolve into what we call man.
dalekcarn999 2 years ago
Sory atheism is not a theology because we dont beleive in god or Theo depending on your gods name. I beleive in the flighing spagetti monstor but he is a monstor not a god like yeawah the christian god. No one can prove the he dose not exist so he must be real. I have faith in the Spag Mon. and that is all you nead if you ask a christians. Im very frightened of you because you nead a 2 or 4 000 year old script to tell you not to kill, rape and pillage. Im just good and dont hurt people.
Savehumanrights 2 years ago
a theology is a belief on the nature of God, atheism is the belief that God is nonexistent. and full Christianity is not just blind faith, only an omnipotent being could create the universe. God is an omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent being. only an omniscient being could inspire the prophecies that are althroughout the old testament, and only an omnipresent being could be with all Christians at once,
the resulting conclusion is that God exists.
dalekcarn999 2 years ago
An Omnipotent? Thats a new word. Ill add it to my vocabuary and might impress some christians. Are you saying that god is only with christians and not other medievil religons? It is so funny that christians love the old testament but it was exactly that that Jesus who was a non religouse jew told everyone to reject, and use some common sence when deciding morral dilemers. Old testament says stone a woman to death for adultery but jesus said May he who is with out sin cast the first stone.
Savehumanrights 2 years ago
omnipotent, all powerful.
Jesus based his ministry on the Old testament. teaching in the temple and telling people of the prophecies he fulfilled by his actions. He was hated by the high priests because he was taking their power. the priests were the "intercssors" for the people; when Jesus gave His life, he became the Intercessor. Jesus' birth was foretold in the old testament time and time again.
dalekcarn999 2 years ago
i know the word's breakdown.
dalekcarn999 2 years ago
@AdminOnDuty If humans start life as a single cell that keeps splitting there is some evidance there that it is possible to make a complicated animal from a tiny cell. Now have you wondered why dfferent races all look different but have a common ancestor. Races of people or breads of dogs is short term evolution and it would only be a matter of time before different races could no longer interbread and same with dog breads.
Savehumanrights 2 years ago
@Savehumanrights,
Actually what deep scientific research has learned is that there is a finite combination of sequences in the DNA responsible for all of these variations. Therefore, all of the variety seen today was pre-programmed into the first cells. This is not evolution, it is procreation. It is also the reason that only a few key animals were needed on the Ark. Now, if you started to grow wings or gills, then I would say something had evolved. Evolution Theory is a dead end street.
AdminOnDuty 2 years ago
I think this shield Idea is great!
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 2 years ago
A monopolar magnetic diode?
No one has ever seen a monopolar magnet and a magnetic diode? What is that supposed to be.
Surely you didn't mean a monpolar magnetic dipole? Or did you. An oxymoron?
stanhbaker 2 years ago
I agree, 'Diode' in the strictest sense is not a very good name sense it is a contraction of two electrodes. This reference is linked to the actions involved rather than the name roots. Most persons familiar with electronics understand the one-way nature of the diode. This envisaged device contains the flux of one of the magnetic poles while allowing the other pole normal spatial distribution thus giving the device monopolar action which acts in one direction. Maybe it is an oxymoron ;-)
AdminOnDuty 2 years ago
Why is it that almost every proponent of "free magnet energy" or "zero point energy" or the HHO
gas groupies, seem to have to put a religious spin on their "secret" technology? I guess it takes faith in a sky fairy to break the laws of physics. :)
4G3NTanon 2 years ago
I'm certain the reality of it is beyond your abiltiy to grasp. Let me know when you can demonstrate abiogenesis and then we can have an intellegent discussion.
AdminOnDuty 2 years ago
I'm an Electronics Engineer not a biologist. Abiogenesis is not in my field and I cannot comment on something I'm not well educated in.
4G3NTanon 2 years ago
Fair Enough.
When you can present to me a fully functional intellegent computer system that became existent without an engineer or any workers, then we can have an intellegent discussion.
AdminOnDuty 2 years ago
God, I can't stand people quoting a fairy tale book.
voon100 3 years ago
God?
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
Dude, (Voon) if you don't like people believing in something just keep it to yourself.
It's funny how people who don't believe in god are so quick to comment about it.
Xjkjk3264X 2 years ago
It's also funny how some people enjoys shoving their own belief into others.....so I think it goes both ways.
voon100 2 years ago
How are we "shoving our belief into others"? I'm sorry, but I fail to notice how.
Xjkjk3264X 2 years ago
please explain
RamoneTalarico 2 years ago
thats fine, but live and let live right?
RamoneTalarico 2 years ago
Science is cool, but leave religion out of it. Belief in false deities has no place in true scientific discussions.
Ultimist 3 years ago 8
Thank you for your comment.
Thankfully my belief is not in something false or imaginary, but someone real (John 7:28).
Scientifically speaking, the source of all energy cannot be explained. Nor can the source of all life. Scientifically, we cannot create anything living from inanimate matter - in all cases a living source must be used.
So, scientifically speaking - I have identified that source and 'He' is multidimensional and sentient. Pretending he's not there changes nothing.
:D
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
Some may just look at the religion aspect as a form of INSPIRATION and such which guides or enlivens them to peacefully think of NEW SCIENCES to help society and such...
Hope in peace
obamanodraft 3 years ago
Thank you. Since many religions recognize the Holy Scriptures as authoritative, I felt the quotes to be apropos. If I had quoted a famous poet I suppose it would not have such a reaction. Is there a country with no religion? Makes one ponder the structure of humanity. This device offers a means to convert magnetic force into kinetic energy without adding energy to the system by effectively canceling the secondary dipole. I give the credit to the creator of magnetism.
Cheers :)
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
Lol thats funny, I would think as a scientist one would accept the *possibility* for anything that they cant disprove regardless of how *improbable* they believe it to be. Atheists are such hypocrites. If Admin chooses to use his beliefs to inspire him, like obamanodraft said, then why the hell should you care? Afraid he may use his research in a mind control device? bwahahahahaha
Cool vid btw.
Animeabe 3 years ago
but you have to understand..its not a free country..we dont have the right to post videos with our own beliefs/ideas
(insert heavy sarcasm) hehe
RamoneTalarico 2 years ago
i have noticed most Atheists i have had discussions with seem to immediately become agitated and have to voice out their extreme opposition to religious people, or anything having to do with the bible, they bash it, knock it, criticize it, say believers are deluded , stupid, weak minded, brainwashed..ect ect...
I would love to conduct a survey, i would like to know the names of every scientist who contributed a major breakthrough and see how many of them were/are religious...im very curious...
RamoneTalarico 2 years ago
It certainly would be an interesting study. Ironically, the Holy Scriptures indicate that such a study will be made and that it will result in a global attack on religion by a single united organization of nations. When you hear a united group of nations declaring 'Peace and Security', then you will know that the power of religion is being stripped from mankind and placed into the hands of government. The prophecy continues to say that a single kingdom will crush all the others. Daniel 2:44
AdminOnDuty 2 years ago
exactly!
RamoneTalarico 2 years ago
Oh RamoneTalarico It would be interesting to see if there were any scientists that were true religouse people. It was usualy the narrow minded religouse nuts who dominated the world that were persacuting any scientist that proved church held beleifs on science wronge.Galilio Davinci Socr. you name them. The sooner religouse nuts keap their fair tails to them selves the better the world will be. Do you believe in Santa as well? You would be a muslim if the Battle of Vianna was lost Learn history
Savehumanrights 2 years ago
hey there i wanted to take a time out to thank you for replying to my post of 7 months ago and sharing your opinion.
All the best
RamoneTalarico 2 years ago
@Ultimist
the Religion may be a Science itself. Your belief push the progress.
manoftnuva 1 year ago
@Ultimist You fail as a scientific mind if you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of something you can't explain. You are what is known as ignorant.
llamapi3 1 year ago
@Ultimist how about your blind belief in athiesm
johny260 1 year ago
@johny260 atheism requires no beliefs. In fact, it is the absence of (specifically) religious beliefs.
Ultimist 1 year ago
@Ultimist Athiesm believes in a universe and life that was produced without any need for a designer. Being an atheist you have to hold that fundamental belief. science so far does not back you up, even though pop science does. Where is your evidence for this conviction?
johny260 1 year ago
@Ultimist Yes it does. It requires you don't believe in a greater power, being or purpose. The closest thing to no belief would be Agnosticism, a belief that nothing is certain. Do your research.
Atheism is no different than any other religion on earth, and has no real scientific backing to its existence.
lithium3fun 7 months ago
@lithium3fun Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Atheism doesn't say "there is no god" - it only says there is no proof for one. Extreme atheists claim there is no god, but I'm not an extreme atheist. No evidence has ever been shown to PROVE that god exists.
Ultimist 7 months ago
@Ultimist
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
agnosticism:
a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence".
There sure hasn't been any evidence to disprove it. Do this for me: Justify love in the context of evolution. There's no way to. It shouldn't exist in a "survival of the fittest" world.
lithium3fun 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ultimist You know, the only reason Atheism is so prevalent these days is because people are being brainwashed into it, religion or no religion. I don't need evidence to prove God exists; common sense and sound logic do that for me.
ElectricGravity 5 months ago
"Light can be bent by magnetic fields, but must alternate and be synchronized"
My view is that light is self synchronized and does not become "un-synchronized" or rather out of phase no matter what is bending it.
gravity can bend light and light will continue without needing to be "synchronized"
a sharp object can cause light to diffract without needing to be "synchronized"
also, in your hypothesis, what would happen if light were un-synchronized? Where would the energy carried by light go?
Fullperson 3 years ago
During a single photon cycle its given frequency the magnetic field and electric field expand and contract. When the fields cross zero the polarity inverts. Because of this, placing the photon in a static field has no net effect because the inversion cancels out. However, if the control field is pulsed in phase for a given polarity, the photon will either bend toward or away from the field proportional to the phase angle. In phase means syncronized and will produce the greatest observable effect
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
you should experiment yourself :D
Fullperson 3 years ago
My current projects do not involve visible light. Berkley just released their work in the microwave range (search Berkley Cloak). Most persons do not realize why certain materials have a refraction index. Search 'left handed materials' for examples of materials that have a negative refraction, negative permiability, negative permissivity. The knowledge gained will help build a better foundation for understanding photon atom interaction. Imagine the photon as phasing between energy and matter.
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
that's how I already imagine it :P
I'm hoping to run my own tests once out of high school. I think I'm going to U rochester, I heard it was a pretty good school
Fullperson 3 years ago
-neutrons stick to other particles in the nucleus because they are pinched in by protons and neutrons, nuclear forces are also present. You can liken this to the casimir effect, however as shown in test done in las alamos, the plates that they tested were not charged.
Fullperson 3 years ago
Photons and particles are different because:
particles = real, they have mass,some have charge
photons = imaginary particles Einstein made up to better explain light's properties (a symbol for energy kinda like the notes on sheet music). He never meant for them to be taken as real; no mass, no charge ever
Fullperson 3 years ago
Huh? Your ABCD points are only tangentially related to mine in response to someone else :P Check point D, however. The vacuum "Zero Point Energy" is, by classical definition, the residual energy in a vacuum produced by quantum fluctuations of virtual particle pair production. It's the so-called "Casimir Effect" and the energy is real, comes from all the fields that pass through that volume of space, gravitational, electrical, magnetic and etc. and may not actually be useful. Time will tell.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
The term 'zero point' refers to zero kelvin the theoretical temperature at which all atomic activity should cease. When this temperature was nearly reached using magnetocaloric materials it was found that too much energy still subsisted. This energy is called 'Zero Point Energy'. Some have speculated that the Casimir Effect may be tapping into this energy but I can assure you this is not the case. Casimir energy is related more to the Dirac Sea than Zero Point.
Cheers
:)
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
What a "magnetic diode" would allow you to do, from the illustration, is move particles that can be magnetically deflected in a single direction and not have them be drawn around the loop. This is actually closer to a mechanical one way valve than a diode, but that's the basics. Has nothing to do with a true magnetic monopole, a now abandoned concept from particle physics, and more to do with the techniques used in Magnetic Bubble Memory by Intel years ago.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
The term diode simply means two active terminals. Early diodes were vacuum tubes and typically exibited rectifying qualities. The magnetic diode is similar in that it has and entrance and exit, thus two 'terminals'. It is monopolar in function, not in weiss domain configuration. To date, the only monopole ever observed was produced by the Hutchison Effect and those domains are thought to resemble metal geodes with the inner surface one pole and the outer surface the other - so not monopolar.
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
A) There are no "particles", just "probability locii". B) All perceived particles are fields that extend to the edge of the universe and are linked at that edge (this obviates "cosmic inflation", "dark matter" *and* "dark energy", btw). C) Magnetic fields are formed by twisting the fields of electrons and resemble the twist in a sheet of rubber, thus the apparent loop (the twist is 3D, btw). D) Zero Point energy is drawn from quantum fluctuations in all the fields of all particles in existance.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
A) E=MC² Thus all particles are actually energy in transition. It is the chain reaction of particles that enabled the atomic bomb to work. B) A field is a volume where force has influence C) Magnetic fields are distortions in space-time that electrons recursively align themselves with. In 3space it has a toroidal appearance. D) Zero point energy is a nuclean resonance between the nucleus of the atom and space-time - it can only be squelched by nucleonic decay - i.e. radioactivity.
Cheers,
:)
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
halbach array.
luketrashtalker 4 years ago
Halbach's configuration certainly has its place. But the dipole still exerts a force on the object in his configuration.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
Why didn't you answer the questions I posted here?
Cheesephone 4 years ago
in the show box select 'all comments', then at the bottom of the screen click the link to see the entire list. This will order the list chronologically starting with the oldest.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
Still nothing. I think you deleted my inital post with the questions.
Cheesephone 4 years ago
Please repost them. I will delete anything offtopic or abusive but as of yet I have not deleted anything in this thread. I did answer 2 of your questions and they are still here.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
I can't see them; everything says there are 8 comments and none of them answer. How many comments is it saying there are at your end?
Here are the questions:
What does this video show?
And (admittedly less important question), What's the Bible verse got to do with it?
Cheesephone 4 years ago 2
8 also, I notice that it places my answer at the end of all the posts under your two questions.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
This is a monopolor magnetetic device. The secondary pole is sufficiently shunted so as to have little or no effect on the moving object. Consequently, the primary pole is free to exert force on the object without trapping it. Any acceleration and resulting momentum is not degraded by the secondary pole. The object freely escape via a neutral zone. The Bible Verses are there to remind us where the energy source is and who deserves the credit for its existance.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
I think I get it. Where's this new energy though? It just looks like potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy.
(Thanks for answering btw)
Cheesephone 4 years ago 2
Scientists have known for over 120 years that magnetic force can be used to provide work. However we have always been plagued with the duality of the dipole. What goes in, must come out and thus the energy always nets to zero. This device reroutes the opposing force to prevent its negative effects and thus the positve force is free to provide work unhampered.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
The opposite pole isn't what maintains the amount of energy to give no net change though - it's the energy changing from one form to another. Why isn't this just potential to kinetic?
Cheesephone 4 years ago
There is an internal and external pathway for the flux. The orientation of the each dipole internally creates Weiss Domains that ultimately results in reaching the surface of the material. Externally the flux path follows curved space back to the opposite pole. Certain materials provide a better path. When these paths are shunted the field size is shrunk significantly to follow the shunt material. I refer to this a field shaping.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
Becuase the non-shunted field is non linear (following the inverse cube rule) an object being acted on will be attracted to the source. However, because this creates momentum the object will always overshoot the source. If the object enters a field whose invers cube vector is opposite to its momentum vector the object will slow to a stop and be drawn back to the source. By preventing the object from entering this field it is free to continue without obstruction.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
So kinetic energy is produced where it wasn't present before, and is not reduced because there is no force (or there's a negligibly small force) to act against it? In the same way probes like 'Voyager' got a "gravitational slingshot"? (just with gravity instead of magnetism)
What's the inverse cube rule by the way? Is it in the same vein as the inverse square rule?
Cheesephone 4 years ago
That is one way to put it. In reality, all mass has spatial pressure around each particle of matter it contains. This pressure is additive and we recognize it as curved space. These two (The magnet and the object) have a special interaction as space tries to equalize itself. We see this interaction as magnetic attraction or repulsion. A similiar reaction occurs as gravity for different reasons.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
A magnetic field cannot interact with space and time. If it could, strong magnetic fields could bend light (as a result of distorting space-time like gravity). Unfortunately, magnetic fields cannot bend light, meaning that magnetic attraction and repulsion are not the result of any special interaction having to do with space equalizing itself.
Fullperson 3 years ago
Actually you are incorrect in your assumption. Cyclotrons use magnetic fields to bend light (an other) particles into a circular path. CRT monitors, televisions and oscilloscopes are examples of magnetically bending the path that electron beams follow. Electron beams exibit the same wave / particle duality as photons. The Auroa Borealis is an example of magnetically altering the path of photonic energy from the Sun. Light is electromagnetic. There are videos here of light being bent by magnetism
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
Yes, cyclotrons can bend other particles, but only charged particles like protons, electrons and ions. Cyclotrons cannot bend particles without charge like the neutron. Put a neutron in a magnetic field and it won't run. Similarly, light photons do not have charge, so whether in wave or "particle" form, they are not affected by magnetic fields.
Fullperson 3 years ago
Along the same idea, the aurora borealis is the result of collisions of *charged particles* with the upper atmosphere, not with photons. Any non-charged particle cannot cause the auroa
Main idea: Just because electron beams act like photons of light, they are inherently and forever different no matter how hard you try to reason. Photons according to Einstein is a packet of energy: a really really broad definition. Thus, it is often confused with particles (since they have energy too).
Fullperson 3 years ago
Thank you for your perspective. I can see you are still learning and thats good. I too thought as you do long ago. But as you gain more knowledge you will learn that all light is electromagnetic radiation. This means that at some point it its cycle it will have an electric field and magnetic field as well. The photoelectric effect is very dependant on this aspect. Pay special attention to why the qty is less important than the frequency. If you imagine a pulsed field in sync you will understand.
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
where would I find such knowledge? Please share with me what you know, I'm curious :P
Fullperson 3 years ago
You can rely on the theories and experiences of others before you but you run the risk of not having the complete picture. Newton was unaware that his theories failed the orbit of Mercury. Likewise Eienstein was unaware that his theories and experiments would omit entanglement. And today, while attempts are made to detect gravity waves and quantify Einstein & Sterns 'Nullpunktenergie' aka zero point energy, main stream scientist fall short in their goals and are often surprised by their results.
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
Much of your knowledge will come from your own thought experients. Ascertain for yourself why the transition from one state of matter to another is not smooth. Or why electrons have orbital shells. Or why gravity fields are spherical and magnetic fields are pinched at the poles. Or why heat cannot traverse a vacuum but infra red can. Or why some electrons weigh more than others. Or why neutrons stick to protons. Never lose sight of your living examples around you and the clues God has provided.
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
And don't make things complicated beyond necessity. When ever possible, Keep It Super Simple (KISS principle). You may want to begin by researching Halbach Wiggler Electron Lasers.
Cheers,
;-)
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
actually I have researched them a while ago, they're pretty cool, but require parts of the setup to be submerged in liquid nitrogen (I don't like the idea of a super heavy, super expensive laser)
Though I do treat it as more of a learning tool yea. The process shows that the photons are packets of energy. That photons = light, that magnetism can be used to push charged particles.
for my wave/particle problems I think of it this way:light as waves and light as particles is just 2 ways of lookin
Fullperson 3 years ago
-one state of matter to another: not smooth because of you need to overcome bonds, then intermolecular forces. Look up latent heat
- electrons have shells cuz they do
- gravity field is totally different from magnetic fields, so you would expect them to have different field shapes
- your def. of heat = convection, convection requires molecules in air to carry it. Heat can also cross vacuum, but only in the form of light
- instrumental problems or fact that some electrons spin differently
Fullperson 3 years ago
right, I already know that, which is why I do my own experiments to verify validity of theories, as well as theoretical stuff. However, it's an absolute fact that photons have no charge and that magnetism cannot bend light. The inability of light to be bent via magnetism can be shown in any environment. Though I agree that theories should not be adhered to strictly, the tests are made in nature, away from any theory. Light will not bend not because of a theory, but by the almighty law of nature
Fullperson 3 years ago
Light can be bent by magnetic fields (and is all the time) but the field must alternate and be syncronized. Likewise it can be bent by an electric field the same way. Radio 'waves' are sub-visible light. We move them around electromagnetically. We bend them and shape them with other fields and sometimes cavities. Each frequency has its very own characteristics and response curves. The wiggler demonstrates energy leaving and electron. Critical for understanding the true nature of photonic energy
AdminOnDuty 3 years ago
The inverse cube rule applies to magnetics as the inverse square rule applies to gravity.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
Our object here still loses potential energy as it approaches the magnet though doesn't it? Just as Voyager lost gravitational potential energy as it approached its slingshot planets?
I can't find any mention of an inverse cube rule in any of my textbooks or online. How could the field strength decrease in that manner unless there were four dimensions of space (and gravity then behave likewise)?
Cheesephone 4 years ago
I haven't read this, it was the first google hit. It starts with three doubleu's and the numeral 3 [dot]sympatico[dot]ca/claudette[dot]berube/On_the_Inverse_Cube_Magnetostatic_Interaction[dot]pdf
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
That link is a bit of a mess so I added it to the about this video section in the top right corner. Just click on ...more to see the links.
Cheers,
Harvey
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
I wouldn't bother reading it. The presentation of the results isn't worthy of a high school student, he doesn't show any of the replicates he claims to have done and there's no statistical analysis for the reliability of the results (not even sd!).
If you do read it you'll see what I mean and then some.
Cheesephone 4 years ago
I read through it later. He did 10 readings per weight and charted the mean. His tests don't seem to factor quite a few things such as surface tension of the water, friction on the cord and center rod etc. But it is interesting that his test does show the inverse cube law to be present. Search Google for Inverse Cube Magnetism and I'm sure you'll find supporting documentation.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
In this device, once the object reaches the highest flux density location PE will drop to zero. However, the point of lowest density is not the highest PE. The highest PE is at the point where magnetic strength can perform the greatest quantity of work. In other words there is a sweet spot for maximum PE. Unlike the Voyager slingshot this device will not pullback on the object. (unless of course you had a track that routed the object back through the non-shunted field in the opposite direction)
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
Where is the PE sweet spot in this instance?
How can you be sure that more KE is produced than PE lost?
When the object leaves the magnetic field, it is at constant velocity and isn't accelerating, so its KE isn't increasing from that point onwards. It has no potential energy as it can't be pulled back, but it has
kinetic energy.
Cheesephone 4 years ago
To find the sweet spot you would need to graph the Force for each distance point and calculate the work it can perform on the mass. There is a point at which the object will travel the entire distance to the center without any further force. This would be your maximum PE point. Any closer and you lose available distance to perform work and any farther and it wont reach the center.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
If there's a force (from the center) applied to the object, shouldn't the object always move towards and eventually reach the center?
How do we know that our object here has gained more kinetic energy than the amount of potential energy it lost?
Cheesephone 4 years ago
The force does not emminate from the center but rather is pushed from space outside. This means if we change the shape of the field we can alter the force vector. (all CRT's use this feature of magnetism to move the electron gun).
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
In a closed system dealing with only a magnetic field and an object you will always have a loss. However, the PE is regenerative because the field never collapses. If the momentum is sufficient to circle the object back around for another pass the PE will be present. In open systems other energy can be added that may result in KE > PE. Examples are Ion wind, convective vaccums and charged particle absorption.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
I think I get this now. PE is converted into KE, and the object can be circled round for another pass - with an energy input to change its velocity of course.
Apart from the neat technology like ion thrusters and the stuff you just mentioned that we can get from this idea, what's so revolutionary about this?
Cheesephone 4 years ago
The energy to change the velocity comes from the one sided magnetic field.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
To make the object move in the manner shown in the video, yes. To circle the object round for another pass though, energy would be required to change the velocity - since as you mentioned the magnet does not pull it back.
Cheesephone 4 years ago
Hypothetically if we used a N45 magnet and a 15g highly polished chromium steel ball, what would the accelertion be by the time it reached the center? After passing the center what would it's momentum be? Lets assume its riding on a circular sapphire track at sea level inside a faraday cage. What would the maximum circumference be for it to return to its starting point and retain 10% of its momentum? If this is possible what does it mean?
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
How far away is the ball from the magnet initially? What proportion of the ball's mass is attracted to the magnet? Which point on the image shown in the video are we calling the center? What is the PE at this center?
Cheesephone 4 years ago
Lets set the initial location at PEmax with the entire sphere affected. Lets call the center the point at which the lower magnet splits into the two upper magnets making a 'Y' configuration. Once the trailing edge of the sphere passes this point the force should net to zero (PE0)in all directions and acceleration stops. Wikipedia Magnet for equations.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago
'gun' should read beam. The gun is actually a hardware piece that emits electrons whereas the beam is a stream of electrons accelerating toward the anode.
AdminOnDuty 4 years ago