It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@Jehovajah, who correctly pointed out: This is an important model, but it is inaccurate. The spirals must dynamically contract and or expand. That is, as they spin against each other, they also expand or contract, thus spraying out or contracting into the conductor.However, it seems that that is not the main problem of the model presented at the top of this discussion. This model cannot explain the attraction-repulsion behavior of magnets simply because the presented model is absolutely symmetrical horizontally (as well as vertically). Such a dynamic cannot result in a magnet with two differing poles. The problem with the model is that the blue and red spirals rotate in opposite directions (blue spiral rotates clockwise when viewed from left to right, while the red one rotates anticlockwise). To fix the model, all one needs to do is to rotate both spirals in the same direction; spirals should keep moving in opposite directions, but they must rotate in the same direction. Then everything falls in place beautifully (see diagrams explaining attraction-repulsion behavioral pattern of magnets on pages 10, 11 and 13 in Joseph Newman’s book: The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman).
Hans Christian Ørsted (1777 – 1851) was greatly influenced by the romantic culture of Germanic Naturphilosophie. This was a philosophical tradition of German idealism in the XIX century. According to these ideas, there was a unity in nature, with all phenomena being all connected as a whole. Ørsted, in particular, looked for effects indicating the unity in different realms: heat, light, electricity, magnetism, chemistry etc… Instead of a “current of electricity”, Ørsted utilized the expression “conflict of electricity”. He defined it as follows:The opposite ends of the galvanic battery were joined by a metallic wire, which, for shortness sake, we shall call the uniting conductor or the uniting wire. To the effect which takes place in this conductor and in the surrounding space, we shall give the name of the conflict or electricity. His explanation for the deviation of the magnetic needle from its normal orientation when close to a current carrying wire went as follows: We may now make a few observations towards explaining these phenomena. The electric conflict acts only on the magnetic particles of matter. All non-magnetic bodies, or rather their magnetic particles, resist the passage of this conflict. Hence they can be moved by the impetus of the contending powers.It is sufficiently evident from the preceding facts that the electric conflict is not confined to the conductor, but dispersed pretty widely in the circumjacent space.From the preceding facts we may likewise infer that this conflict performs circles; for without this condition it seems impossible that the one part of the uniting wire, when placed below the magnetic pole, should drive it towards the east, and when placed above it towards the west; for it is the nature of a circle that the motions in opposite parts should have an opposite direction. Besides, a motion in circles, joined with a progressive motion, according to the length of the conductor, ought to form a conchoidal or spiral line; but this, unless I am mistaken, contributes nothing to explain the phenomena hitherto observed.All the effects on the north pole above-mentioned are easily understood by supposing that negative electricity moves in a spiral line bent towards the right, and propels the north pole, but does not act on the south pole. The effects on the south pole are explained in a similar manner, if we ascribe to the positive electricity a contrary motion and power of acting on the south pole, but not upon the north (end of quote).It is interesting to hear what Faraday had to say about Ørsted’s explanation of the deflection of a magnetic needle by a current of electricity (see Historical sketch of electro-magnetism. In: Annals of Philosophy 2 (1821), p.107): “[…] I have very little to say on Ørsted’s theory, for I must confess I do not quite understand it.”
I have to ask myself, where do we go wrong! These observations are empirical testable and deducible. When did we lose this common sense approach? The answer I am afraid is when we let mathematicians and greed loose on these fundamental apprehensions.